The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1892-04-20
FROM MR.. MCGOWAN.
He shows that the Real Deficiency 1s
S6.55o, Instead of $1,000, as Claim
ed by the Delegation.

Editor Press and Banner:
Again am forced Into print on the county
levy Most Of the dega'66e t6er reoe
was justified by the facts. cannot 10 see H.
WAS not our delegation informed, othcial-
ly. that the levy as proposed by them was too
low and If not increased that deficlency
would be the result?" They all admit THIS,
and. therefore, my point Is carr ed. but they
seek to justify themselves behind columns Oh
figures.
deman ded and what was levy allowed?
Big figures, Mr.. Editor. are to me average
mind gliLtering generalities. Ihe levy is
simple - figures bewildering. But as my
friends seem TO want figures my only Oo1ec.
ton is that they have not made theirs "oig'
enough. -
I admit that when I made my speech on
March 18th, had not examined the County
Com missioners Office, but spoke only from
what had been told me by Mr.. J. F. Z. DuPre,
one of the Comm issioners, but have now
spection' which the delegation comments
and that "lnspection" thoroughly sustain Mr'
DuPre.
Let us see:
Instead of 81 the County Commissioners ask
ed for mills.
mir. Dupre did precede his demand with
some figures-es,imates only-but the gist OF
the demand sent to the delegation Is In these
final words.
"It will he necessary to raise.
II. For ordinary county purposes g. mills.
80. For past indebtedness......".."" 4 Mills
"Total levy necessary y.......:.."...::.:" mills.
~. +. G.. DuPre,
/ County Commissioners"
Be IL remembered that the "correspond-
ence" referred to, was had between Mr.. Du-
Pre- and the chairman OF the delegation aIIer
this estimate was Snbmitiad, when MIR. Uu-
Pre- wrote that { the levy was put at 8 mliis
aS the delegation desired, II deficiency would
be the result. Ct regret that have not copies
Of Mr.. DuPre's letters, but haye his word for
it,
The deficiency which properly belongs to
lSgO-9l is a great deal more than 81 5i2.
There were two bridges. VIZ: The Boyds
mill bridge and the Searrs mil bridge wnlcn
The mmisSioners knew would be on1lt when
the levy was made IN December, legO. Mr..
DuPre so in formed the chairman of the dele
cation, and 1t WAS 10 meet This expense that
as much AS mills was demanded. THESE
bridges were to have been completed curing ~
the fiscal year which ends November lst. The
contractors were q little behind with thelr
work aud they accounts were othpproved nn
I'll the meeting of the Commissioners on SALE
day In December, 1891, and because OF this un-
expected delay the cost Of these bridges was
cmrried over into the fiscal year, lS9l-G while
they properly belong to lS9O-9l the only reii-
son they are not charged 10 ls9O-0l Is because
OF the accident that they were not completed
''On Time"
The point wish 10 impress Is. that MIR. Du-
Pre- informed the chairman that these bridges
would he built. and that some provision
should be made to meet the expense. No pro-
vision was made. The bridges were built,
and the cost Of same righttully belongs 10 the
fiscal year, lS90-9l.
This accounts for the difference between
the Figures" and the levy" There IL no
re ference in the figures 10 this amount, bnt
Mr.. DuPre says II was included In the mil
levy. The chairman was so informed, ana
still say they should have put the levy us de-
manded-viZ: 4 mills.
If3 mills were sufficient why did the Coun-
~ Commissioners demanded mills?
If the estimates in figures were all right
and included everything, why "correSpond
with Mr.. Duire at all ? .
There was som eIhing besides the Figures
that requi red u correspondence. and thai
something was the provision Tor the Two
bridges above referred 10, which WAS not
made.
What is the virtual deficiency belonging to
lS90-9l? -,
/. Present 3E w
9. SearS mill dge..-......-.......... 2l33 W.
g. Boyd'S..."........." 900 W