Lexington weekly intelligencer., 1883-02-17


out know ledge of the law, as we can
not think lie would otherwise be sc
unfair ss to make the allegationt
which he does. He says: "Our road
laws may be very good in part, but
we think it very wrong that man
who has no property. who works by
the day or month to make living,
should work four days on the public
road, and rich farmers W ho have mules
and horses to tear up the roads do
not do as much to keep up the roads,
II our correspondent can prove that
the law exempts the erich farmer" OF
like age from the RECRUITMENT of four
days work upon the public roads.
while it exacts it from the poor man
"who works by the day or month to
make living" then his assertion
may hold good. Otherwise he must
himself see that it cannot do so. Be.
side. the man who owns property
must pay taxes on that property to
build the bridges and repair the roads.
Out of the 922.s77 0S of last years
county expenditures proper, $9,116 OF
was spent for roads and bridges.
This money hardly grew on trees. 1t
was paid by somebody evidently by
those who have property in the
county.
J.H.K.remarks: "Thereln our county
court made great failure last year. We
know very we'll that they appropriat.
ed $40, 900 out of the county fund en-
roads, but was that righte To neg
lect the Que aud do the other. The
people are not satisfied with it." The
people in the country, who UNDER
stand the situation. are very we'll
satisfed. They could not well be
otherwise. as the matter has been
worked altogether In their interests.
The constitution limlts our county
tax to 40 cents on the one hundred
dollars. The road law permits 20 cents
of this to be laid for roads and bridges.
Our county court, tiudinE that the
road tax. levied AZ such, with the priv
ilege Of being worked out, neither
yielded oil of the revenue or all OF the
work that it should have done, thought
they sufficiently obeyed the law, and
would much more secure the collec.
ton of the tax, If they laid il in bulk,
and appropriated sufficient amount
Of it to the purpose. In the latter
opinion they were right, but this
course worked The hardship of making
property in the incorporated towns
pay road taxes for the county. In ad-
dition to maintaining their own
streets. Lexington In this way has
paid 81, 100 or $1,000 per aunum to
the county roads that tho law does
not really contemplate it shall pay.
The people here have known this all
the time. and though any one tax-pay-
er could have stopped. it by asking the
circuit court for All injunction there
has never been q single complaint.
Al we have said frequently before, we
do not believe this manner Of taxation
should be continued, a. it is unjust to
the incorporated towns, but our cor.
respondent can see at glance that if
the tax had been directly levied for
roads, with the property OF the incor.
porated towns exempt, it would not
have yielded as much as was actually
realized. That the sum appropriated
to roads caused the neglect of any
thing else is evidently an error, for in
any event the county tax for other pur.
poses could not have been more than
1t was. The real lame place III the
law 10 In its permitting the taxpayer
to pay his property tax in work. The
tax being for money this privilege de-
fsats, in a very large measure, the COL
lection Of the money, or the securing
of the work. Our views on q road
law adequate to the necessities OF such
counties as ours are else W here ex.
pressed at some length. II they can
net be embodied IN the statutes we
should, at least, like to see the error
here pointed out remedied.
In conclusion we will say, that We
are always pleased to have thinking
men, whether or not they agree with
us, express their views on public
questions through the lntelligencer.
When We agree with them We shall
chesrfully say 80, and when we differ
from them courteously endeavor to
point out why We do so.