The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-09-22
The Inspection of Timber.
EDIsTo RIVER. September 18.


TOTHE EDITOR OF THE NEWS.
In your issue Of the 11th, see a communi.
cation signed T. J. Mackey, Inspector General
of Timber and Lumber, undertaking ITO mo-
tice certain errors in which your correspond.
ent, 'Justitia,' has fallen into" &C. After
perusing his article carefully, must say that
1 have failed to see any errors that he has
shown. except in regard to the date Of the
ssacl;" on the other hand, he has fallen into"
such gross errors that it would hardly be ne.
cessary for me to notice them were it not that
nv silence might be misconstrued.
If, as he contends, the Office OF inspector
general. &C., is the same, except IN name, as
that OF inspector and surveyor, where Is the
necessity of an ordinance Of the City Council
~ to create such an Office? and is it not plain to
every one except he, who expects to derive the
emoluments OF such an Office. that the City
Council has exceeded it's authority" when
the act provides that these inspectors. &C.,
''shaI be elected annually" and the ordinance
that 'the inspector general shall be ele cted re-
gularly every two years"
He says that your correspondent further
alleges that the ordinance violates also the act
OF 1856 reducing the fees to eight cents per
Thousand feet. IN this he is again in error,
&c. Now, If he had taken "sectiOn OF the act
of 1853" in connection with that of 1856, (Which
says, "it snail be the duty OF the surveyor and
inspector to measure all timber in the manner
aforesaid, brought tor sale to the City OF
Charleston, at the request OF any person own
tiAcate to such person specifying the quality
and kind and quantity, &C." ne might have
readily seen that everything is required to be
done under th's "dct" that he undertakes TO
subdivide, in -ssi6cation Of the ordinance lex.
cept classifying and marking) and that eight
cents per thousand feet is the fee for it all.
At that price, with the addition OF classifying
aud marking, the Office is much more remune-
rative, to the inspector, than the profits on
timber sold is to the cutter; as have known
the measurers to often make eight and ten
dollars in two bours, and there is no cutter.
with his team included, that can make that
amount In the same space OF time; then to
raise it to thirty cents per thousand feet, about
one-third OF what is usually given to the labor
ers for squaring and hewing the same timber,
would be too much to bear.
The "act" does not require timber to be
classified or marked, and the probabilities are
that such an Office might act injuriously to
either the cutter or seller lift should be filed, as
most are at present, with unqualified persons.
am glad to see that Mr.. Mackey has seen
q few defects, at least. in the ordinance, if not
be charged;" though he Is very much mis-
taken in saying that with the exception Of
the defects cited, the ordinance gives general
satisfaction to the timber cutter" Now,
live among the cutters and have conversed free
ly with numbers of them on the subject. an6
have the first one to find yet, who approves
OF it, or who does not consider it an imposi.
ton and assumption of authority. unwarranted
by the existing "acts" on the subject.
more rigid and just measurement, and q
proportouate incr, ase of the fees therefor,
enacted by the proper authority, will not be
objected to; until that is done, think the
present inspectors, &C., will have some trouble
in collecting their bills tor over eight cents
per thousand feet. Notwithstanding Mr.. Mackey
aggregate was three cents lower per thousand
feet, than they have ever been, or, in other
words, than the eight cents usually paid. By
what kind of an arthmetcal calculation this
conclusion is arrived at, am unable to COM
prehend. JUsTITA.