The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1909-07-16
THE IDLER.

+ + + X y x + X X y X r y X i
The Idler has received the follow
ing note from the editor Of The Her
aid and News. enclosing proof Of an
article by Mr. Blease in reply to what
The IdIer had to say in the last issue
Of The Herald and News:
1--WE enclose you herewith proof Of
article by Mr. Blease. which speaks
for itself. We have Mr.. BleaSe's per-
mission to hand it to YOU for reply.
if You desire to make reply
1.-THE Tdler doesn't want to get III
to any controversy with any one, and
if it did. it would not feel competent
to engage in an argument with Mr..
Blease as to bonds and obligations. Of
other kinds. and the construction Of
Acts. I want to say, though. that
Mr.. Blease misunderstood me if he
thought | meant to SAY anything
against the new court house. [ am
proud of the building, and every cit
izen in the county ought to be proud
of it. because it is credit to the
county. And the county needed it and
Mr.. Blease is to be heartily commend
ed for going ahead and taking the
stand he did in the matter.
But why quibble over words' What
is a bond. but an obligation of the
county? What is a note but an obll-
cation 1f the county? Could the an
nual tax levied to pay the note given
to the sinking fund commission on
which money was secured to build
the court house, be repealed and the
credit Of the county be maintained?
Isn't the county as much legally liza
BILE for the payment Of note as for
the payment of bond? Didn't the
act providing for the erection Of the
new court house recognize that there
was no real difference. when it au
thorized the commissioners lof the
sinking fund to lend to the county on
the "note or bond' Of the county
treasurer? I don't know. Questions
seem to be the order of the day. and
I am simply falling in line and ask
ing some.
Wasn't it intended in the act for
the erection Of the court house to get
the money at once and altogether. so
that the new building could be erected
and paid for afterwards? Isn't that
what the advocates Of bonds for good
roads claim to be the advantage OF
bonds over an annual tax. Would
Mr.. Blease have attempted to build
the new court house by levylng the
same annual tax which came in every
wear, and doing a little work on the
court house, and then waiting until
next years tax came in, and then do
ing little more?
That was what The Idler was try
ING to stress. Whether you call il
a note or a bond. it is getting the
money in a lump sum, so that sub
stantial work may be done, and not
patch work.
In Mr.. Blease'S article in The Her
aid and News some time ago he quot
ed from a speech be made at Half
acres Mill, in which he said: ~ fav-
or good roads, and want them but ad-
wise you all not to vote any bonds,
but vote a tax if YOU please, and
then if the money is not properly
handled YOU can have the tax repeal
ed at the next session Of the legisla-
ture," etc. Now, there, in Mr..
Blease's own words, is the reason he
urges an annual TAX III preference 10
bonds. Now, let's see the difference
between an annual tax and bonds or
a note. if YOU please. Could Mr..
Blease's annual tax to pay the
"note' of the county given for
money to build the court house. be
repealed now? Suppose the work had
not been done properly? Could the
county have refused to pay its note,
any more than it could refuse to pay
its bond?
So, after all, what's the difference?
Isn't note a bond. and isn't bond
a note? Oh, I don't mean in strict