The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1907-04-24
what ARE The FACTS
As to the Cost and Benefits of
New Counties?
Some False Statements Put O4t BY
Advocates of New Counties Met
and Refuted.

OlS.luCI -ulOFemSulS OIL LOU w CuL
Orangeburg County for the purpose
Of forming new counties. If they all
succeed the grand old mother county
will be pretty badly disfguTed, but
we do not believe that the people are
ready just yet to cut the old county
up into shoestrings for the purpose of
allowing some ambitious towns to be-
come county seats. However, it is
q matter that the voters Of the sec
tions must decide for themselves, and
whatever their decision may be will
suit US. The proposed counties are
as follows:
First-County to be formed out Of
portions of Orangeburg, Lexington
and Aiken Counties, with county seat
at Sally If this succeeds it will take
& big portion of the lower folk Of
Orangeburg County, including one or
two towns.
Second-County to be formed out
of portions of Orangeburg, Colletcn
and Dc chester Counties, with coun-
ty seat at Branchville. If this sue
ceeds it will take in considerable
rortion of the lower fork Of Orange
burg County, but will not touch any
of the towns except Branchville.
Third-County to be formed out
of portion of Orangeburg and Lex
ington Counties, with county seat at
St. Matthews. If this succeeds it will
take in about the same territory that
was formerly included in the propos-
ed Calhoun County, which included
several small towns.
These are the boundaries of the
proposed new counties as far as We
have seen them stated. All of them are
old schemes revived. The people
have voted on each of them before
and repudiated them at the polls, and
we believe they will do so again when
they are put in possession Of all the
facts.
AS soon as we can get at the ex-
act boundaries we will take pleasure
in laying them before our readers.
1t is not our intention to take any
part in the discussion regarding the
formation of these new counties one
way or the other, but we shall en-
deavor to give the people such facts
as we can get bearing on the sub
ject from time to time, so as to en-
able them to come to an intelligent
conclusion in determining the mat
ter.
One of the arguments used to
bolster up one of the new counties IS
that taxes in the new county will be
lower than they are in the old, that
the expense of a small county is less
than a large one, and to prove it
Bamberg county is brought forward
as an example of economy. We are
asked to compare Bamberg, a small
county, with Orangeburg, big coun-
ty, and We are told that we will find
that the small counties are run on a
much more economical basis, and
hence taxes are lower. Now let US
investigate this statement, so conf
IDENTIFY made, and see if it is true.
According to the tax levy for 1906
we find that the tax in Bamberg
county was 4 mills. For the same
year in Orangeburg County the tax
levy was 2A mills. This certainly
does not bear out the statement that.
taxes in the small counties is less
than it is in the large county. 1t
will be noticed that the taxes in Bam-
berg County are nearly double what
they are in Orangeburg County,
which knocks to pieces the argument
that small county can be run cheap
er than a large one. The figures
prove the reverse to be the case.
Bamberg. Dorchester, Greenwood,
Lee and Saluda are the last counties
organized in South Carolina. Now
let us compare their tax levles with
Orangeburg and see if the result will
warrant the statement that a new
county cut out Of OranSeburs and
Lexington could be run on lower
tax levy than OrangeburS County is
being run on. We shall not base our
on speculation or the
statement of any county official, but
we will take the figures themselves
as fixed by the Legislature. AS the
State tax and the constitutional three
mill school tax are the same in all
the counties, we will omit them. and
use only the figures passed by the
Legislature for ordinary county pur-
poses. which varies according % the
needs of the different counties.
AS we stated above the levy in
Ramberg County last year was tour
mills.
In Dorchester County it was !:
mills. 90,
In Greenwood County it was ze
mills. ~.
In Lee County it was 5 mills.
In Saluda County 1t was . hllllS:
As We stated above the tax levy in i
oraneeburg County last year was
The showing made is most cred
HE one and proves that the a:fn!"s
# Orangeburg Ccs'n 49,. -. ac-
nirably managed by the Supervisor