Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1902-02-19
ROAD Law UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Working the Public Roads and colIectlnq
commutailon Tax Cannot be- Enforced.

| "ofNng tne fuoiic koads and collectip!
| Commutatlon Tax Cannot be- Enforced.
| Such is the natural inference draw
from the decision OF Judge Gage. rem
dered in two cases, one against Ephrian
Blackwell ct al and the other agains
Horny Hill, both cases charging a failur,
to work the public roads.
The cases We're appealed from tn,
Court of Magistrate j. FL. Rainey, II
Savannah township, October 2s, 1901. b,
e. G. McAdams, Esq, young attorne,
of Anderson.
In his grounds of appeal Mr.. McAdams
took the position that the county gov
ernment act of 1895, under which ou,
present system of county government
was Gre ated, is unconstitutional lbecaust
it is in contravention to Section 81, Arti.
Gle III, subdivision 8, of the constitution
Of 1895. This section providing that,
"rhe General Assembly of this State
shall not enact any local or special laws
concerning any of the following subjects,
or for any of the following purposes, to
witt" In thirteen subdivisions these
Subjects" or purposes" are set forth.
Subdivision 8 roads: "To provide for
age at which citizens shall be subject to
road or other public duty" and proceeds
to show that said act of 1895 was special
legislation in that it provides that a
number Of the counties of the State are
exempt from its operation and seeks to
fix who are liable to road duties in seve-
raj counties; that it fixes the age at
which the citizen shall be subject to road
duty at from 18 to 80 in some counties.
but at 81 and 80 in other counties, which
is in violation of said Section d, Article
III, subdivision 0 of the constitution.
That it was special legislation in fixing
the commutation tax in several counties
at 81 and in others at so, thereby violat-
ing Section 3a,T Article III, subdivision 2
OF the constitution; that it was unconsti-
tutional further, for the reason that il
fixes the number of days work to be per-
formed on the public roads at four days
in some counties. three days in others
and six days in others. This beir,< in
violation of subdivision Q, as above
stated, which reads as follows: "To lay
out, open, alter or work roads or high
ways"
In reviewing these cases Judge Gage
sustained the appeals and ordered the
prosecutions withdrawn, which, in the
opinion of several of the ablest lawyers
at the Anderson bar, was tantamount to
pronouncing our county government act
unconstitutional.
If this be correct-and there appears
to be very little doubt of it, as the decis-
ion of Judge Gage was founded upon the
Especial" or 'local" legislation of the
act-we have no legal board of County
Commissioners in the State, and our
county government is only dc facto
government.
The act of 1906 being unconstitutional
the act of 1893 is revived, which, while
it leaves the Supervisor a legal officer,
wipes out the County Board of Commits
sioners and renders the Supervisor power
less to act in many important matters.
AS the matter now stands, (and it may
as we'll be said plainly because the act of
1896 will not stand the test of the Courts
unless the Legislature now in session
passes county government act in keep
ing with Article III, Section 34 of the
constitution,) it will oe necessary for the
Governor to appoint, upon recommend
alton of the Senator and members of the
House of Representatives from the res
pective counties, three discreet free
holders in each township" and the
Supervisor, together with the chairman
of the Township Board of Commission
ers, shall constitute the County Board of
Commissioners.
AS the matter now stands, working the
public roads and collecting Communication
tax cannot be enforced. The salaries of
officers are involved as well as number
CO .ov..5r iinpoT tait matters. The hands
of the Supervisor are tied, he is power
less to act and what is accomplished
depends upon the good citizenship of the
people.
1t may be added that Code Commits
sioner j. E. Breazeale in his report to the
Legislature year ago, pointed out that
this act of 1896 was in conflict with the
constitution, and Hon. w. f. Stevenson,
of Chesterfield, Speaker of the House of
Representatives, at the beginning of the
present session of the Legislature, called
attention to the unsoundness of the
county government ntlaw.-Anderson Daily
Mail, February 14th.