Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1873-10-09

sonal property; but could we obtain the ac'
curate figures the showing would be still more
favorable for this township.
Besides York, the proposed road will run
through Bethesda and Bethel townships. Ad'
ded to the assessments of York, we have in
the three townships an assessment of 1875,
446-an amount considerably more than one
third of the total assessments of the entire
county. From neither of these townships
paying more than one-third of the taxes of the
county, have we heard the cry of oppression
and tyranny, so distressing to the Observer,
and we feel warranted in believing that but
little, if any opposition comes from that source
In other sections of the county there are num-
bers of heavy taxpayers whom we know to
favor the subscription. Hence it cannot be
truthfully charged that the people of the coun-
ty are opposed to the subscription, or that
there is unanimity of hostility to it.
The Observer further says that if the ques.
tion of subscription was submitted to the peo'
pie, it is almost certain that it would be voted
down. Upon what grounds the Observer POUNDS
this conclusion we do not know. No doubt it
takes the vote on the Airline road as a preced.
ing example. The vote in this county, was, by
small majority, declared to be against the
subscription but the manner in which the
majority was obtained has been regarded with
some dubiousness. The vote, as returned from
some precincts, was larger than ever polled by
them before or since and the boast was after
wards made by those who opposed the meas
ure, that the magnaumous city of Charlotte
furnished goodly number of the votes which
killed the subscription. What foundation
this boast has in fact we cannot speak advised
ly but if it is true, we think we can detect a
"dead fly" in the Observers precious ointment
more potent, even, than its disinterested con-
dolence with the people on account of "op-
pressive taxation" But if taxation for inter-
nal improvements is Oppressive" in one To-
cality, why is not so in another? No argu.
ment is necessary to prove that liberal sys-
tenn of railroads enhances the value Of real
estate wherever adopted; and if argument
were required, we could cite the county of
Mecklenburg, ofwhich Charlotte is the coun-
ty-seat. That place has no natural advan-
tages superior to any other inland town of
this State or of North Carolina. Yet by an
enlightened policy of internal improvements,
Charlotte is regarded as one of the most pros
porous towns in the South, while the value of
real estate in the county of Mecklenburg has
doubled within the past eight years. And
Mecklenburg county has, since 1868, issued
no less than $4,000 of county bonds in aid
of building railroads. We hear of no cop
preston" from that county; but to the con-
trary all is prosperity. Must York county be
deprived the benefit of railroad facilities, and
all the advantages to accrue therefrom, simply
because the Charlotte Observer, in the pleni-
Lude of its superior sagacity, has suddenly
discovered that "Charlotte, and not Chester,
is the proper market for the productions of the
Catawba valley?"
The object of the Observers article is OBJ
vious. 1t was written with the view to inhu-
ence the elections on the question of subscrip.
tion in the counties ofNorth Carolina, through
which it is proposed to build the road, and
thus defeat the project, in order that the pro-
ductions of the Catawba valley may yet be
diverted to the Charlotte market, regardless
of the interests of the producers of that Sec
ton or the wants of purchasers in other To-
calities.