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

The UKAlNAGE LAW.
MEssRs. EDITORS: The recent law
suit at Anderson between the County
Commissioners as plaintiffs and other
citizens as defendants, involving the de-
tailssof said law, induces me to make
soms comments on the spirit and pur-
posesof said law, and especially as to as
sessments for expenses incurred in re-
moving natural or artificial distractions
in our streams.
The people, and 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
structions. Many portions of our County
had become such great sufferers, in a
sanitary point of view, by reason of such
a condition of things, that it became 8
matter of general concern and a public
necessity that something should be done
to relieve our citizens if fanything were
possible. Hence the passage of the
drainage law-frst, for Anderson County
alone, and afterwards adopted by other
counties ALSO. But for the general sick
ness prevailing at the time, the passage
of such law, though demanded in all
agricultural point of view, would have
been deferred for many years.
Taking. this view Of the origin and
main purpose of the law, to-wit: the re-
storahon Of the. general health of the
County, permit me to suggest that our
rexcellent County Commissioners, in the
past, have never fully appreciated their
responsibility IS. health officers in the ad.
ministration 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 obstruction, to.
| wit: mill-dams or shoals, upon the own.
t'ers of the bottom lands lying above said
distractions. Is there any justice in
such a construction of the law? Shall
the owners of said lands be held respon-
sible 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 the County Commissioners
themselves, as health officers of the Coun-
lity, have adjudged such drainage neces-
esary to restore and rescue the impaired
tihealth of the whole community. The
bare statement of the case exhibits its un-
fairness. AS the whole County is more
or less interested in the drainage of said
lands as health preserver, and as the
whole community is to be benefited by
the removal of this fruitful source oi
sickness, then the County is bound, in
Justice, to assist the land-holders in said
expensive undertakings. And, indeed,
the third section of the bill evidently
contemplated such assistance when it
| provided that the Commissioners at their
discretion could transfer portion of the
expense to the County. And right here,
in just such cases as the removal of dams
or the blasting of shoals, which, in many
instances, involves an expense which the
land-holders, unaided, can i'll afford to
bear, is where, in my judgment, the pub
lie, assistance should be rendered. The
landsholders are entirely willing to ditch
their own lands at their own expense
but when, in addition to this heavy out.
lay, they are also to pay heavy assess.
ments for the removal of such obstruc.
tions, as I have enumerated, it is not only
unfair, but it is absolutely ruinous, in 9
financial point of view, to any community
that are thus taxed. Taking the law as
it stands on the statute book, lay down
this proposition as incontrovertible, that
| the drainage of bottom lands had become
a public necessity, demanded by the
highest consideration for the public
health, and sustained too by the judg'
ment, of the best medical skill in the
County, and, as necessary consequence
if the public were to be benefited as vel
as the individual landowners, it was eyi
IDENTIFY the intention Of said drainage Law
that all the parties benefited should bea,
just proportion of the expense, leaving
it to the judgment of the health officers
to determine what that proportion should
be. As this feature of the law has beer
entirely overlooked, so far, by the County
Commissioners, the result has been, nat
urally, dissatisfaction, and an unreason
able burden imposed upon a portion o
the community where tho aUhols are to b.
benefited.
i T. II. R.
JUDGE WRIGHT'S MOVEMENTS.
A TRUE HISTORY OF THE HABEAs COR
PUs CAsE-BULL-DozING AN ASsoI