Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1883-08-02
what the power is to put in motion and pro-
mel il. and what the penalties are for failing

required to perform.
The Superintendent of highways" is ap
pointed by the county commissioners, and,
nolens volenS, he is required to discharge the
duties of superintendent "for twelve months
from the date of his appointment" unless
removed by the commissioners. He has
general supervision of highways in his dis
trict under the direction Of the commission
ers, appoints overseers, arranges the hands
into "convenientsquads,"r requires the over
| seers to call out the hands, regulates the
number of days for each working, divides
his district into suitable sections, and shall
once every three months report to the cOun-
ty commissioners in writing the condition
of the roads and bridges inhi district" He
performs this work without compensation.
"And when the county commissioners or
any of them give orders to the superinten-
dent of highway districts to have any work
done in his district and he neglects to do the
same, he shall be deemed guilty of mis-
demeanor, and upon conviction thereof in
| trial Justices court, he shall be fined in a
sum not less than ten nor more than fifty dol
lars" Section 1,0S4. If the county COM
missioners never "give ORDERS" then su-
perintendent is never amenable.
And the "overseers of districts" for neg
| lecting to call out their hands and work the
roads when required by the superintend-
ent of highway districts shall be deemed
guilty Of a misdemeanOr, and upon con-
Viction thereof in the Court above named be
| fined in a sum not less than five nor more
than twenty dollars, ,"-Ibid. The overseer
serves without compensation, and his ten
ure of Office is not stated. | presume he
holds it at the pleasure of the superintend-
ent of high ways, and if he should never be
''required" he would never be amenable.
Section ,0e5 is as follows: ANY person
| liable to road duty who shall have been
duly warned twelve hours before the day
| fixed in his notice for such working, stating
the hour and place Of working, shall be
subject to the direction of the overseer in
charge. If any person of legal age shall
neglect to appear or shall refuse to work
upon the highways and roads (having no
| iustifable eXcuse) according to the direc-
tion of the overseer, he shall be, deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon convic-
ton thereof before trial justice, shall be
fined in a sum not less that five dollars, nor
more than ten dollars, or be imprisoned in
the county jail for period Of not less than
five nor more than twenty days. In Lex
ington and Richland counties twenty-four
hours notice to be given"
Section 1858 provides, among other
things, that "if the commissioners of any
county neglect to have repaired any of the
highways and bridges which by law are
required to be kept in repair, they shall be
deemed guilty of misdemeanOr, and,
upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in
sum not less than one hundred nor more
than five hundred dollars in the discretion
of the Court"
We have now seen what the law is, and
the penalties for neglecting or failing to
carry it out. You may as well expect to
move the Great Eastern with a two inch
screw propeller as to put this law in effect
ual operation with the powers lodged in
the officials charged with it's execution.
The extent of the powers Of the county COM
missiOners, as far as / can discover, is to
"give orders' to the superintendent, and If
he fails or neglects to obey he shall "be
deemed guilty of misdemeanor, &c, DC.
How does he obey the "orders"' BY sim
ply requiring" the "overseer to call out the
hands," &C., &c. And the overseer, for neg
lecting ''to call out the hands" when requir-
ed," shall be deemed guilty, &c.
Now, let us suppose the commissioners to
be indicted under the foregoing statute, and
true bill found, and they reply that they
gave "orders," how can they be punished?
| And suppose you then indict the superin-
tendent, and he proves that he "required"
the overseer "to call out the hands" in obe-
dience to the provisions of the statute, how
can he be punished? And suppose you ar
raign the overseer before q trial justice,
and he shows that he did "call out" the
hands as he was "required" by the super
intendent and the "hands" came and
brought a hoe, or axe, or mattock, or other
| implement, and worked, how can he be
punished? The roads are still bad, almost
impossible.
The presumption is that every man who
assumes public office will discharge it's
duties with fidelity, and the presumption
| is generally well-founded; but you cannot
expect public officer to enforce law un-
| less you give him the necessary power and
authority, and the mere statement of the
law in this case discloses it's own inetficacy.
Who feels inclined to lodge a complaint
upon which an Indictment can be found
against commissioners who have done their
best to discharge their duties faithfully?
A still more ungraciOus piece of business
would it be to arraign superintendent or
overseer, who may be your neig ghbor and
friend, serving without pay and perhaps
against his will, forit appears he must serve
if appointed, although he may be disquali-
fed by want of experience or otherwise for
the place. The "penalties" are practically
dead letters. A "hand" may 60 upon the
road, carrying hoe broken at both corners,
worthless shovel or axe or mattock, cut
few bushes, dig a little earth, open drain
or two, all of which may be wholly inetfect-
ual in improving the road, and yet he has
complied with the letter of the law. He
may never travel the road once in twelve
months. He may not own vehicle in
which to travel, and a mule path would
answer his purpose as well as macada-
mized road; but how are you going to reach
him? He has responded to the warning"
of the overseer, who was 'required" by the
superintendent, who was ''ordered" by the
commissioners, and he has worked the road.
Such division of responsibility in public
administration will take the marrow out of
any law. There never was truer maxim
than the trite one, "What is everybody's
business is nObody's business" and this
road law is striking example of it. have
endeavored to state it fairly. [ have stated
| it fairly because / have taken it from the
book, and have given all that appears to
me material to full understanding of its
scope. / wish it to be understood that in
criticising the law am not rejecting upon
the men charged with it's execution. have
no doubt they are generally as good men
as the country affords. / am dealing with
principles, not men, and in no spirit Of
mere fault-inding and captiOuS criticism,
for have lived long enough to learn that
nothing is easier than to find fault with and
pick to pieces any system of laws created
by man, and few things more difficult than
to substitute something better. In this
case, however, l trust / shall be able to sug-
gest an Improvement, but before entering
upon that l will endeavor to show, approx
imately at least, what our public roads now
cost the people Of the State.
M ~ RJrTT Up