The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1904-03-16

results LIS lON IL ISeoS {"
charter with more power, out it
does not need a charter which
places no restrictions around
council in the disposition of town
property. and this is our main
objection to the general Act.
Under this Act council has the
- 49, =, -, E-,1an'::s.-. [--;.t'-
Goss~::; ~, :. ,.2:::i y.ss:,., i
.s,-",% : !;0F.a'<>, 70 9G2}~. So '.
.,: ,v ,,02,;,s.i !,
a>f>,E.gl. To-. lt;.'-a!! l.
u, ;.:3:..:.:rs ;siS -
and we hope the day will never
come when the citizens will have
cause to regret giving such
power to a council. There were
Is property holders who voted
sNo," these men are not opposed
to progress, and among them we
count citizens who always re-
spond with liberal hand to every
good cause. but like ourself they
did not believe it right to give
council as full power as the gen
eral incorporation Act gives;
they stood ready to petition our
Representatives in the legisla-
ture to give US an amendment
which would remove the objec-
ton. These citizens wanted that
course pursued first, and i'll case
the Representatives failed, it
would then be time enough to
consider the. acceptance of the
present Act.
The election Oh last Thursday
was without incident, very little
interest was manifest, none on
the part Of those who not favor
the change at present; some lit
tie electioneering was done by
the other side. and in their zeal,
some misled voters by telling
them, that before council could
raise taxes, or grant a monopoly,
it would have to be submitted to
the voters. This is not so, as a
reading of the Act will disclose
to any intelligent mind. The
Act distinctly says council shall
have the power to buy: sell,
alien and convey property AT
WILL. and it also says council
shall have the right to impose a
tax levy as high as ten mills.
Wehave always advocated hav-
ing our charter amended, claim
ing that we have outgrown our
present charter, and did not the
general incorporation Act give
the power to council to grant
special privileges, without con-
sulting the taxpayers, we would
have voted in the affirmative.
Our position is not a new one,
three years ago we were opposed
to the general incorporation Act,
and sought to have it amended
in the general Assembly, it
passed the Senate: and two read
ings in the House: on the third
reading in the House, the clos
inc hours~of the session, it was
killed, but had our present dele
cation introduced a similar bill
looking to the amendment Of the
general incorporation Act. at
the same time, putting safe
guards in the shape of submit
ting the matter of special privi-
leges to the taxpayers. and the
increase of taxation for impor
tant Improvements, we have on
doubt it would have easily pass
ed, and then all Of our property
holders would have gotten a
charter that would be satisfac-
tory, but as it is, those interest
ed in special privileges, and the
size Of the towns treasury. and
whose palms are itching have
obtained a suitable charter.
There are other reasons why
we wanted safe guards in our
town charter. The new charter
gives council power, without
consulting the taxpayers, to
raise the levy to ten mills or one
per cent of the assessed value.
At present the town is receiving
a. large income from the dispen
sary proits-over $4,000, sup
pose the towns income from this
source should be taken away, as
it may be any time by the sue
cess of the prohibition move
ment, what then becomes Of the
promise that taxes will never be
raised to the limit? Does not
every man Of affairs know a rev
enue sufficient to run the town
must be raised: Then if Prohi-
bition succeeds, it will not ouly
need a ten mill levy. but L.
cense tax upon any and every
thing from a cradle-maker to a
grave-digger, A large majority
of the interested supporters Of
the movement to bring the town
under the general incorporation
Act are men that are active ad-