The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1900-10-10
The Press and Banner
Wednesday,:Oct. 10, 1900.
The Amentlmen IL.

The proposed constitutional amendments
should be voted down. The present consti.
tutional safeguard against the conflscation
of the citizens property should be preserved.
That amendment which refers to the con
demnation of swamp and low lands, and
which provides "for the equitable assessment
of all lands so drained. for the purp Sc OF pay
ing the expenses of such condemnation ana
drainage" IL most unjust.
On the same principle railroad company
should have the right to condemn high lands
which might be necessary for their track, ana
have the right to make "an equitable assess.
ment' for the expense of grading the track
through the citizens real estate. more
monstrous or a more iniquitous proposition
was never made.
Suppose the citizen does not desire the
drainage of his swamp or low lands.
: Suppose he objects TO the opening of pub
lie highway or the building Of railroad
across his lands. ia
Is there justice or equity In forcing
him to submit to the taking of his prop.
erty for others uses? Is there common hon.
esty in forcing him to pay for the opening Of
the highway or for the grading Of the rail.
road.
Either proposition Is as honest as the prop
osition to take forcible possession Of mans
swamp land, and make him pay for its de-
struction.
It is not every man that wants his swamp
or low lands drained. II man wants his
swamp or low lands to be used as q pasture
he certainly does not want the water drained
off Of them.
The ditching Of our streams is attended
with great risk, even when 1t Is desired 10
drain them. Owing to the lack OF proper
conception OF the art of combining the water
to desired channel and the probable effect
in opening such passage way for water, but
few men will take the risk. The chances are
that all money paid for ditching may be
wasted, and that such dItches may carry
away the soil to the injury otthe land owner,
or that they may be filed up by the first rain.
Very little effort is made to cultivate low
lands. The ordinary tenant does not want
bottom land at ALL Only men with intelli-
gence, money and mules can cultivate bottom
land prohtably In this country
Weknow of a farmer who paidS70 to dig a
ditch. He didn't know how TO pitch 1t 80 as
to take the current, and the first rain allied
the mouth of 1t with sand, and the ditch was
abandoned. Nearly ali the bottom land In
this county has been ditched at one time or
another, and the bitches are full. We know
OF one man who spent more money in ditch
ing tract OF bottom land than the original
, cost of the ground. The bed of the creek was
reduced from four to six feet, but the small
bitches could not now be found with q search
warrant. II the cost Of that ditching had
been debt against the land, it would have
been sold long ago to liquidate the debt. The
landowner who has money to burn may ex-
pertinent In big bitches to his hearts content.
But the man who places debt on his real
estate to ditch his lands does so with nine
chances to one against him.
We speak our convictions, and believe that
both proposed constitutional amendments
should be voted down.
In case they are adopted the last safeguard
TO property is broken away. AS rule every
proposition to increase taxes is carried by an
overwhelming majority, and it is barely pos
slble that the people may vote away the rights
OF the citizen as to swamp land.
If any man on any water course desires to
ditch the stream. he should make terms with
his neighbor owning lands lower down the
stream, and pay for what he wants.
II man should own few acres OF bottom
land, is there any JusticeIn allowing him TO
tax his neighbors with the Improvement OF
his grounds?
This editor shall vote against both amend
ments. Others may do as they please.