The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1877-03-08
THE DRAINAGE LAW.

pIESSRS. CDlION: lhc recent law
suit at Anderson between the County
Commissioners as plaintiffs and other
citizens as defendants, invo' .ing the de-
tails bf cad law, induces me to make
some copaments ON the spirit and pur-
posesof aaid law, and especially as 70 as
sessaIents Sor expenses incurred in re-
moving natural or artificial distractions
in our streams.
Tho people, ana especially the health
officers of our County, should bear in
mind, that the great cause which lead to
the passage of said law was the general
sickness which prevailed few years ago
in many neighborhoods of our County by
reason of the malaria generated in the
vicinity Of mill ponds and other obstruc-
tions in many of our streams by reason
of the sobbed and unhealthy condition of
bottom lands caused mainly by said OBJ
afructions. Many portions of our County
had become such great sufferers, in q
sanitary point of view, by reason of such
q condition of things, that it became a
matter of general concern and public
necessity that something should be done
to relieve our citizens If anything were
possible. Hence the passage of the
drainage law-Grst, &c. Anderson County
alone, and lfterwards adopted by other
counties also. But for tho general sick
ness prevailing at the tirne, the passage
of such law, though demanded in al
agricultural point of view, would have
been deferred for many years.
Taking this view OF the origin and
rain purpose of the law, to-wit: the re-
Storation Of the general health of the
County, permit me TO suggest that our
excellent County Commissioners, in the
past, have never fully appreciated their
responsibility as health officers in the ad.
miniatration of the law. They have
heretofore saddled all the burdens of said
law, not only the ditching of their own
land, but the expense of the removal Of
said natural or artificial obstruct' n. TO.
w.t.: mill-dams or shoals, upon tho own.
chs of the bottom lands lying above said
distractions. Is there any justice in
such construction Of the law? Shall
the owners of said lands be held rcspon-
siblo FOR the general health of the whole
community, and be forced to provide the
means, out of their own pockets, for all
the expenses of the drainage of said
lands, when tho County Commissioner.
themselves, as health officers of the Coun.
ty, have adjudgcd such drainage neces
sary to restore and rescue the impaired
health of the whole community. The
bare statement Of the case exhibits it's un
fairness AS the whole County is more
or less interested in the drainage of said
lands as health preserver, and rs the
whole community is to be benefited b,
the removal of this fruitful source O
sickness, then the County is bound, il
Justice, to assist the land-holders in suic
expensive undertakings. And, indeed
the third section of the bill cvidentl,
contemplated such assistance when Il
provided that the Commissioners at thcil
discretion could transfer portion of til,
expense to the County. And right here
in just such cases as the removal of dsn
or the blasting of shoals, which, in man,
instances, involves an expense which tn,
lano-holders, unaided, can i'll afford t,
bear, is where, In my judgment, the pub
lie assistance should be rendered. TIL,
lhndsholders are entirely willing to ditcl
their own lands Mt their own expense
hut when, in addition to this heavy out
lay, they are also to pay heavy assess
ments for the removal of such obstruc
toAs, rs have enumerated, IL is not onl,
unfair, but 1t is absolutely ruinous, in
financial point of view, to any communit,
that are thus taxed. Taking tho law a
it stands On the statute book, lay dow
this proposition as incontroyertible, tha
the drainage of bottom lands had becom
q public Necessity, demanded by th
highest coh, sration for tho publi
health, and sustained too by the iudg
ment Of the best medical skill in tn
County, and, rs q necessary consequence
1t the public were to be benefited as vel
as the individual landowners, it was evi
IDENTIFY the intention Of said drainage Law
that ell the parties benefited should bca
o just proportion of the expense, leavin,
1t to tho judgment of the health officer
to determine what that proportion shoult
DO. AS this feature Of the law has beel
entirely overlooked, SO far, by the Count,
Commissioners, tho result has been, nat
urally, dissatisfaction, and an unrcason
able burden imposed upon a portion o
the community whcr tho ,chols are to b.
benefited. q
T. II. r.
| JUDGE WRTHNT,S NJNyEn9pETc