Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1882-10-26
Ys4istellaueuns &eaaiug.
NEW COUNTIES.

When the extra session proposed, among
other things, to pass joint resolution 10
change the constitution so as to reduce the pre-
scribed area of counties, we opposed it, alleg-
ing the counties were small enough and that
such 4 measure would be another source OF
division. We are glad to say our entire dele
CATION opposed the measure, and sorry to say
our belief has been verified. 1t would have
been better either to have postponed the meas
ure, or better still to have let each claim stand
on it's own merits. There may he counties
which are too large and should be divided,
but this could have been done by special
measure.
We see from our exchanges that new coun-
ties are projected already in various sections.
Seneca City wants court house; so does
Pendleton then one is proposed at Ninety
Six: one in upper Greenville and at various
other points in the State. 1t will be readily
seen that the making of new counties Will
increase slightly the State expenses and large
ly the county expenses, because the expensive
county machinery must be kept up IN all OF
them. The present shape of the counties is
such in many instances that the divisions will
give no additional convenience to the people
In most instances the new counties Will be
long slipes. leaving most of the people equally
remote from either court house. Take the
proposed court house at Seneca md it carried
the upper part of the county wOuld Ike rs re-
mote as ever, while by running the line as
proposed in the Journal the lower part would
be in two or three miles at some points. The
upper county would not be able to support
government and build it's bridges. at pres
eut we have about 635 square miles and pop
ulatioR of about 5000, one half or more OF
whom reside below the proposed lne Near
ly or quite three fnurths OF the property lies
below the line, and when our whole area pare,
ly gives support to public officers how could
they live if the counties were reduced? we
do not write in opposition to Seneca or Pen
dleton or to our own interest, for one half or
more of our property lies below the lne we
write in opposition to the principle on the
ground that it will reduce the pay and conse-
ouently the competency of officers in all small
poor counties without adding to the convenience
Of persons in attending court when neces-
sary. Besides, we do not know the reason,
but still it has always been the fact that lands
in this State have commanded higher prices
than in the great Empire State Of Georgia
where small counties exist. The lands in
Georgia are as rich, or we think richer, and
vet cross Tugaloo River and they have in the
past been hsld lower.
If the old system Of defraying county ex-
penses were restored. we would have but little
objection to new counties. Our readers will
remember that jurors witnesses, public Off
GERS, free schools and all county expenses, ex-
cept roads and bridges, public buildings and
support of paupers, were formerly paid by the
State and a general tax for that purpose was
levied and went into the State treasury where
it was disbursed, while now every county bears
all it's expenses.
Another fruit of new county means an
increase Of officers, which is unnecessary, and
if so unwise, for while a proper number of
efficient officers to secure full administra-
tion of the laws is necessary, whenever the
number goes beyond this the excess is engaged
in unproductive industry. Money spent for
unnecessary officers is money burned up on
every theory of government. We throw out
these suggestion as applicable to new coun-
ties anywhere in the Stats, ,-KeQwee Courier.