The Batesburg advocate. [volume] (Batesburg, S.C.) 1901-1911, 1904-08-18


and operated certain .oads
After leasing these roads much money
had been sppnt in improving them anu
Siviag tho public better and safer SER
vice. BUT notwithstanding this fact
nine suits were brought by individuals
against the Southern claiming that it
was liable FOR the one hundred dollar q
day penalty for leasing and operating
these roads Tine Southern took the
position that 1t was not liable, on tho
ground that the roads were neither par
alel or competing lines within this state
and that 1t was not acting In violation
or the peEalty act OF 1897. Five OF these
nine suits have been disposed of by trial.
or abandcnment, and not one OF them
has gone against the railroad, but the
counties were put to the trial expenses
all the same. 4..-.. b..
"' e~ Merger Act.
At the session of 1902 Senator Hydrick
OF Spartanburg introduced bill allow
Ing the G.. G. & c. Oh the eastern aide
W the state. which was practically a
worthless road. not paying operating
eAI enses and generally in bad condition;
the -Spartanburg and Ashevills In tho
the. connecting link between Columbia
ana the west: the Carolina Midland,
which extended from Allendals to SeIy-
ern. a distance Of forty (40) miles, for
merly owned by the Wagners, out Of re-
pair and generally in bad shape; the old
South Carolina road, which extended
from Charleston to Augusta. which had
been owned by the Parsons and was
GlOly down IN
capital stock. leases and franchises un-
der one charter and to be known as tn.
Carolina division of the Southern rail-
way. i opposed the passage of this bill.
hut the senate by a practically unanl-
mouR viva voce vote passed ths bill and
1t was sent to the house. By a vote of
sixty (60). to thirty mine (s9) this hill
passed second reading In the house
and was amended on third reading by
unanimous consent. and as amended
passed the third reading in tho house
without opposition. The members of the
house from this district who. voted for
the passage OF this bill were Mr. Bostick.
OF. Bamberg; Mr.. Lockwood and Nj.
Coicock, Of Beaufort; Mr.. Thomas. of
hampton; Mr. Pattison. j. o. and Mr..
lziai, OF Barnwell; Mr.. Mason. of Edxe-
field and Mr.. Eugene s. Blease, of Sa-
iuda- MIR. DeLoach, who now lives I'm
tlompton county, was at that time a
IIiember OF the house from York county
ai'd he Glso voted for the bill Thi, 4,
Known as the Merger Act. So, we have
eisht members from this district who
Hoieu for the bill. nine, including Mr..
DeLoach. while only five members from
Tins district voted against 1t. The sen-
ate accepted the house amendment and
the Dill became law. This Merger
N't did not deprive any person who had
piousht suit before its passage of any
iesai right that he had or from pressing
ms suit to a nnal conclusion Yet. Mr
Williams would make the impression
that L ought not to go 10 congress be-
cause i did not defeat this bill-that
thn' shows that 1 would favor corpora
tons l. opposed the bill and voted
against II in viva voce vote and no
hish authority as the Attorney General
or the state has said In a published In
tefview that he knows 1 opposed tn.
bill. - ID rs
Tho record shows that Mr. Patterson
voted for the bill. Why does not Mr..
Williams complain OF Mr.. Patterson.
vote? II my voting against the bill
rehdsrs me unfit for congress Mr.. Pat
tcrsons voting for 1t renders him more
so.
Effect Of the Merger Act.
-his act authorizing the consolidation
oi These roads has had the effect of