▁which ▁it ▁did ▁so ▁at ▁a ▁cost ▁of ▁£ 9 1 , 0 0 0 ; ▁however , ▁it ▁had ▁long ▁since ▁possessed ▁a ▁cont rolling ▁st ake ▁in ▁the ▁canal ▁company , ▁having ▁purchased ▁its ▁deb t ▁in ▁connection ▁with ▁G & S WR ' s ▁earlier ▁ac quisition ▁of ▁the ▁Ar d ross an ▁Railway , ▁with ▁which ▁the ▁canal ' s ▁financial ▁affairs ▁had ▁been ▁long ▁inter tw ined . ▁ ▁Early ▁on , ▁the ▁G & S WR ▁under to ok ▁to ▁keep ▁the ▁canal ▁oper ational ▁and ▁open ▁to ▁traffic , ▁as ▁well ▁as ▁to ▁pay ▁£ 3 , 4 7 1 ▁ann ually ▁to ▁the ▁canal ▁company ' s ▁propriet ors . ▁At ▁the ▁time ▁therefore , ▁there ▁had ▁been ▁no ▁declared ▁intention ▁to ▁use ▁the ▁physical ▁infrastr ucture ▁of ▁the ▁canal ▁for ▁railway - related ▁purposes ; ▁however , ▁at ▁a ▁share hold ers ' ▁meeting ▁held ▁during ▁ 1 8 7 9 , ▁the ▁Chair man ▁referred ▁to ▁a ▁newspaper ▁article ▁which ▁had ▁made ▁claims ▁that ▁the ▁G & S WR ▁held ▁intent ions ▁to ▁convert ▁the ▁canal ▁into ▁a ▁railway ▁line . ▁At ▁that ▁time , ▁there ▁was ▁extreme ▁sens itivity ▁among ▁share hold ers ▁over ▁what ▁some ▁saw ▁as ▁the ▁direct ors ' ▁wh ims ical ▁and ▁expensive ▁schemes , ▁leading ▁to ▁the ▁Chair man ▁speaking ▁out ▁to ▁den y ▁the ▁claim , ▁stating : ▁" That ▁had ▁not ▁entered ▁into ▁the ▁minds ▁of ▁any ▁of ▁the ▁direct ors , ▁nor ▁was ▁it