The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1885-08-29
Holmes COuHty and the LeFee Dis
trlct.


We copy from the Yazoo Herald
the following lucid and conclusive
reply from the YazOo County Dem.
oeratic Executive Committee to
that of Holmes county upon the
levee question between said coun-
ties: -
You say: an matters of legis
lation taxing the whole State, the
will of the majority controls re
gardless of the views of particular
sections; in matters of legislation
where local taxation is imposed
for local purposes the rule is diff
ferent, and no county has ever
been specially or locally legislated
against without its consentr
You make two grave errors.
First, you presume that all mat
ters of legislation which do not
tax the whole State are local.
Secondly, you presume that the
levee question is local to Holmes
county.
In grossly incorrect and mac.
curate sense. levce legislation and
levee taxation might be said to be
local, that is, local to the overflow
ed district-consisting of Coaho'
ma, Tunica, Tallahatehie, Lehore
Quitman, Sunfower, DeSoto, Yaz
90 and Holmes. In no sense,
however grossly inaccurate andin
correct, could they be said to be
questions local to Holmes county
Levees are n matter really ol
general iHterest to all the territory
which is inundated by the Missis
sippi river, and whether they shall
be built at all, or, il built, how i
shall be done, are questions to be
determined by the majority of'tht
people dwelling on the lands af
fected regardless of the opinion
of the minority, and not by thu
people of Holmes or of any othel
minority section affected. More
over, after such questions are de
ternined by the majority, and |
has been determined by an over
whelming majority of the people
interested that the levees shoult
be built and that the lands over
flowed in 1882 should be taxed Il
pay for them-then 10 one land
owner, nor no set of landowner
from any one county, nor, for tina
matter, from any two counties
has the right to say rs you do
"All right, 20 ahead, we won't in
terfvre with you; we will receiv
what benefit there Is, If any, bn
we will not pay any share of tn
bnrden.n
There was some little argumen
for Hancock's celebrated utter
ance that the tariff was u "locs
question:" There is none at al
for this ut.erance of yours tina
this great question of levee pre-
tection--of vital Importance t
fourteen counties or parts of cour
ties and of equal interest to ther
aud to all the people of this broa
Delta-more than that to thei
children and TO their children
children--is a question local
Holmes county.
Your legislators were shrewde
than your convention They di
not put it on. that ground whe
they prevailed OIL the Legislator
TO exempt them. They put
boldly, whether in accordanc
with the facts or not you you
selves are the best judges-on til
ground that Holmes county neve
ovcrdowed from the waters {
Mississippi river and consequent
needed no levee protection.
We hope that yon will do us th
justice 10 see that this reply find
aplace IN your county newspaper
since your communication has, W
understand, been published b
them; and since we do not wis
the position of the Democracy {
our county TO be misunderstood
Again regretting that the n,
cessity of this discussion has ari
on, and trusting to the sober se'
ond thought of the people {
Holmes ultimately TO put an en-
to it In the right way, either b
entering fair Conventian with u
to which we arc now and have a
ways been open, or by voting fc
Yazoo's choice for Floater. th
Hon. W. ID. Gibbs-to whose Den
ocracy and to whose competenc
to gil the place they can certainl
have no valid objection, we ar
in the utmost feeling of good will
JOHN s. WILLIAMS,
b. s. KICKS,
r. g. HUDSON, Con
j. @. CARUTHERs.
A. NJ. HICKS,
| CHOLERA.
| Madrid, Aug. 25.--4.701 ne
cases of cholpra and 1 A33 dpafh