The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1880-04-08

g gin was preparing, through certai
: officials, to join in the scheme.
f was greatly surprised to learn tina
e many .;ood citizens living West Q
r the Seneca River would acquiesce il
!. this cession to the State of Georgi
: as the only means left them to es
!, cape from what they believed to b
great oppression and exorbitant tax
? alton. l opposed the scheme fo'
, many reasons-among them tina
!, South Carolina could not afford tt
: lose any portion Of her territory
t and to transfer so large portion O.
, her intelligent white population
would have been disastrous indeed
No portion Of the State is now in a
more prosperous condition than that
proposed to be ceded, and nowhere
did the people do more to restore
good and honest government than
those living between the Seneca and
Tugalo Rivers. I determined, if
possible, to defeat this wild and des:
perate undertaking. To do so, |
introduced, as shown by House
Journal of 1894, page 3, the
following: "Bill to repeal a Joint
Resolution to require the Governor
TO communicate with the proper au-
thorities of the State Of Georgia,
with view to readjustment of the
boundary line between the States Of
Georgia and South Carolina. and
authorizing the appointment of three
Commissioners" The Bill to repeal
passed and was approved by Gov.
Moses, March II, 1874; and thus
the integrity of our territory was at
least saved from threatened harm.
FENCE LAW.
This question appeals particularly
and personally to many of my late
constituents, and hence l desire that
my views and acts shall be scruti.
nized and fairly judged. Believing,
after all the information / could OBJ
tain, that the people at large would
be benefited by a change of the law,
l introduced ga Bill to regulate the
fence law in Anderson County,"
House Journal 1874, page 250.
This Bill met with opposition, but
finally passed, and was approved by
Governor Moses.
Under this Act this question was
submitted to the voters of Anderson
County, and, although a majority
voted for the measure, a large pro.
portion of them claimed that they
did so under Misrepresentation;
therefore the Commissioners, for fear
injustice might be done, and having
high regard for the rights Of the
people, ignored the result.
After my election to the Senate
I went to North Carolina to see
for myself the actual workings
of such a law there. This only con-
frmed my former convictions and
induced me to persevere. Again I
proposed a Bill [see Senate Jour
nal 1874-75, page 359,] which fixed
the boundary lines of land as the
lawful fence. It received a majority
vote in the Senate. but was defeated
in the House.
Again, at the regular session of
1876, [Senate Journal, page 79,] |
presented "a Bill to authorize Coun.
ty Commissioners to submit to the
qualified electors of their several
Counties a proposition to alter the
fence law and to provide for efectu-
ating the same" This Bill was
acted upon favorably in the Senate,
amended in several particulars in
the House, and approved by Cover
nor Hampton, June 7th, 1877. An
election was held under this law, and
the people, by their votes, adopted
it. No comment is necessary now.
Experience has abundantly verified
the wisdom Of such a measure, and
I doubt if, after another years test
of the benefcent results of the new
law, there will be found a corporal's
guard in Anderson County in favor
Of the old system. Competent
judges are of the opinion that the
County has saved the past season
alone in securing cotton that would
have been lost under the old system
at least one hundred thousand dol
lars. Many other Counties have
taken advantage of this Act, and
general thrift and prosperity fol-
lows.
STATE, COUNTY AND OTHER FUNDS,
By reference to House Journal,
session 1928, page 263,i it will be
found that I introduced ga Bill to
regulate the deposits Of State, County
and other funds" This Bill re-
quired the State Treasurer to deposit
the moneys received by him in banks
to be designated by State Board,
such banks to give bonds for double
the amount of their average de-
posts. Section 7 of said Bill re-
quired the State Treasurer to pub
lish monthly statements of amounts
recei1ed from whom. To whom maid