Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1918-12-10
Belongs to the People.


Columbia canal involves matters OF
very great importance to the people Of
South Carolina.
Briefly stated. the facts are like this.
After spending an immense amount Of
money in trying TO dig a canal around
the shoals at Columbia. TO make Broad
river navigablc for boats. the state
having become tired Of the job, turned
all of its interests in the project over
to the city Of Columbia, on condition
that it would complete the job.
After a time the city of Columbia
disposed OF its interests in the property
to Il Columbia corporation. organized
for the purpose Of taking it over.
The canal has never been completed
AS Il matter OF fact the necessity for its
completion has been doubtful for many
years. The probability is that even If
it were completed, the river would not
be very extensively used as u CONNER
cial water way. either now or in the
future.
But us water power the canal Is
worth several millions OF dollars and
this property is in the hands Of a cor
poration that has not given for it the
consideration that was stipulated in
the contract.
There has been more or less talk
about how the ownership of this prop
crty was cuchred oAt of the state by
the father of Ed Robertson, who is
now assumed to be the principal own
or. and how the said Robertson the
elder was carpct-bag politician who
came 10 South Carolina during recon-
struction for plunder and got 1t.
So far as these things are concerned,
we do not see that they have anything
to do with the present issue.
There are those who say that no
matter what may have been the re-
proachful record of the elder Robert
son. or Mr.. L. W. Robertson either, if
any reproachful record there be, that
the present Mr.. Robertson has been
accepted by the people of Columbia
and the state socially and otherwise,
and it is not advisable or desirable to
rake up past reproachful history.
We heartily agree that there is no
sense in slander or abuse in regard to
the matter; but that has nothing what
ever to do with it all.
The question is does this canal prop
erty rightfully and justly belong to the
corporation that is now owning and
enjoying the profits from it, or does II
belong to the people of South Caro-
lima?
If the property justly belongs to
those who now have it in possession,
let them have it; but II 1t belongs to
the state Of South Carolina, then the
state of South Carolina should have 1t.
If the consideration Of ownership
was completion of the canal, and the
canal was not completed the consider
alton of ownership was not complied
with The fact that there was no long
er any necessity for completing the ca
Nal uOeS Iol pIOpciS th'Si INV 'hN
proposition.
This canal property is of sufficient
value to more than pay the entire state
debt. That fact. however, is important
only to the extent that the property
may or may not belong to the state.
No matter what may be the present
social or political status of the holders
of this property, if they do not hold 1t
lawfully and justly. it should be taken
away from them.
The matter will be settled in the
court: but we do not hesitate TO say
that the people of South Carolina need
to watch their interests most carefully
to see that justice is done.
As we see the whole thing right at
this moment. we feel morally certain
that this property in dispute belongs to
the state of South Carolina. but we are
not prepared TO say that we feel sure
that even though that be the case, the
state will get what belongs to the state
in the final settlement.