The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1922-01-14
State Boundary.
Question
Y. Stribling Charges Con
spiracg of Power Company
tThe Anderson Daily Mail)

Anderson. S. &C.. Jan. 6, 1922
EDITOR Daily Mail: My atten-
tion has been called to a state
nent in your paper from Washing
ton over the signature K. r. NJ.
that an argument was begun here
today fJan. a. before the Federal
Supreme Court on the Georgia
Carolina boundary case, case In
which the action was originally
preaicated upon a claim to the en-
tire river beG Of the three rivers,
Savannah, Fug.aioo and Chattooga
and that In the course of argu-
ment on the part OF Georgia cour.-
SET Georgia's claim was modified
sosas TO extend to only mid stream.
Iiais was an unexpected and inter
{ eStiHE turn in the case for 1t re-
suited IN practically reversing the
respective claims Of the two states.
ThiS statement is by no means sur
prising to me; for long since SEN
sed the motive prompting the ac-
ton on the part Of Georgia and the
ready .fafl-to' on the part of Mr..
Wolfe IN his answer SO we'll turn
ed and timed to the purposes OF the
c0nspnators against the sovereign
: right concerns OF this state in the
case: the consprators, the while,
being fostered by many confer
ences. held with Mr.. Wolfe in At
lantaa
Therefore, to the public. TO the
legislators OF this county and state
and to the court at Washington
and Congress. would, at your op-
fioafrom my brief of evidence,
duly filed with other papers in the
court at Washington as evidence in
support of nay plea made to the
court for a stay Of proceedings to
the purposes Herewith stated -
present through your columns the
following:
The Attorney General in disre-
gard for the plain meaning OF the
term branch or stream as applied
totaes Savannah river by the Char
tiers and as applied to both the
Savannah and the Tusa!oo in the
words of the treaty in connection
Nth the Iocative and descriptive
wording of the deed OF cessior-
falls into the error of abandoning
the treaty and its provisions. and
substitutes instead, tributary
riser not recognized by the treaty
orby its joint instrument. the deed
ef cession. He>Jhus deprives South
Carolina 1he effectiveness Of the
treaty as the supreme law cf the
land the safe reliance in this ac-
tion as the defendant in the court
OF last resort; and proceeds to sub
stit,1te for the provisions Of the
treaty false statutory construc-
ton of its terms Thus erecting a
barrier against the exercise OF the
dcfendant's right of claim and re-.
coyery of the very land which by
the third article of the treaty it was
..agreed by the State Of Georgia
ti1at thereafter no claim would be
asserted By said State to any lands
aorthward or northeastward OF
the boundary lines set out by the
frsacy and its provisional connec-
ion with the territory ceded.
Tilis is not merely suit OF one
state against another state. 1t is
q case OF a conspiring band OF
water-power monopolists against
orderly government 1t is an at.
tack upon the sovereign virtue and
YIght of authority yoachsafed to
South Carolina by the general
9esernInent under an approval
treaty agreement; such agreement
as IS declared by the United States
Constitution to be, the supreme
law OF the land
I charge that the suit was IN
stituted and brought in the name
Of the state of Georgia, but was
brougn. at the call of the Georgia
Railway and Power Company,
for the purpose OF securing
the said company il its fraudulen.
seizure and usurpatien of the Tall
is7.lah waterfalls; and on the part OF
Georgia the purpose OF securing its
nen-titled occupancy of the coun-
try lying between the Chattooga
river and that certain ridge or
chain of mountains which alone
separate this state freto the terri
trfy it ceded to the United States
government in connection with the
treaty agreement made between
this state and Georgia .tnd in this
connection accepted aud approved
by congress.
eaarge that the facts. as - The
unlawful seizure of the Tailaluh
waterfalls, were mace known to the
officials of Georgia II connection
with suit. reluctantly brought by
Georgia. at the request of the Con-
s.ryation and Parki,1: Association
against said Georgia Railway and
i',aser Company. l charge that
previous to Georgia's s bringing suit
ai.sii..Ss South Carolina the ocfici-
ais directing it, were Informed as
to the practice Of fraud on the part
l,E said company in The trial Of ,..le
TaIlulah Falls case and that they
permitted the fraud to go on un-
checked to the purposes Of said
company. I, therefore. charge that
the officers of Geo:si,t in diccciirg
the pending suit IN the name Of
Georgia against South Carolina 80
so.in the hope of getting a Supreme
Court decision in favor OF the ci;,:n
set up by Attorney General W".f.
that the Ghattooga river is a par;
Of the treaty BOUNDARY betweei. :h..