Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1912-03-26
The 1903 FLOOD.

A case in which the Southern rail-
way was sued for damages, the case
being an outgrowth Of the floods OF
August, 1908, has been decided by the
supreme court. The opinion was hand
ed down by Associate Justice d. E. Hy-
drick, last Friday. The case, says the
Columbia Record, was one In which
small judgment was, recovered and
sustained on appeal, but the case and
the opinion are Of interest from the
fact that after the recent freshets the
circumstances of the case are recalled
vividly and the opinion recites many
interesting facts concerning the 1908
and previous floods. The opinion OF
the lower court was affirmed.
w. E. Ferguson Of Yorkville, recov-
cred judgment against the Southern
for $34, the value of lost shipment of
sugar and rice, consigned to him at
Yorkville by the Tiedeman company Of
Charleston, on August "a, 1908, and
also the penalty Of $50 for the failure
of the road to pay, within the time re-
uuired by statute, the claim presented
by Ferguson. The goods had been de-
stroyed by the waters. The railway
company admitted the loss OF the
goods, but claimed that the loss was
due to the act Of God, and motion was
made for verdict in its favor. This
the court refused to grant and Fergu-
son was allowed judgment. The rail-
way appealed and the decision of the
lower court was affirmed, the ground
being that the railway company knew
from past experiences that high water
was coming.
The goods shipped to Mr.. Ferguson
were lost at Kingville, on the road
from Charleston to Columbia, Camden
and Yorkville. The waters from the
Congaree and the Wateree flow togeth-
er at Kingville and in time Of heavy
rains the water rises above the rail-
road tracks. Two freight engines were
stationed at Kingville on the morning
OF the 1908 high waters and the plain
tiff claimed that these should have
been used in removing the freight cars
to a place of safety. The defendant
held that it did not expect the waters
of the two rivers to rise as rapidly as
they did and so did not take precau-
tionary steps. The question before the
court, as quoted by Associate Justice
Hydrick, was one of foresight or hind
sight" On which should the defend
ant have depended?
In reviewing the conditions of the
flood of 1908, the opinion in the case
says:
beginning about the 18th of August,
rains had been continuously falling
over the watersheds Of these streams
(the Wateree and the Congaree), and,
beginning about the 23rd, they became
unusual, both in quantity and In the
extent of territory covered; so that by
the oath nearly all the streams In the
upper part of the state began to rise,
and on the 25th and 26th they had
reached the flood stage The
four greatest of the previous floods
were those Of 1852, 1865, 1888 and 1908.
Those of 1852 and 1865 were about the
same, about "a feet in height at Co
lumbia; that Of 1888. 1873 feet, and that
of 1908, 35.8 feet. In 1888 the highest
reading of the gauge at Camden, on
the Wateree, was 33 feet; in 1908 1t
was 39.7 feet. Just here 1t should be
Congaree Is confined at Columbia, even
than it is at Kingville. At Columbia
1t Is about 1900 feet wide, while at
Kingville it Is between three and four
miles wide. Hence, ordinarily, after
the flood stage Is reached, the river
rises only about one-fourth as high at
Kingville as ii does at Columbia. In
1888 the water rose from to IL inches
above the railroad track at Kingville.
After the flood the tracks were raised,
according to the different witnesses.
from two to three feet, to put them
safely above high water.
In 1908, Notwithstanding thesriver at
Columbia was only about two and one
half feet higher than in 1888, the water
rose about six feet higher at Kingville
than it did in 1888. The only reasona-