The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1912-04-20
POLITICS OR LAW?

Ouf Wcusenciu correspondent re"
news and continues the discussion Of
the legality OF the appropriation Of
$4,000 OF county funds to assist the
city OF Sumter In extending and i'm
proving the railroad facilities Of the
county and city-the city having pre-
viously appropriated $4,000 for the
same purpose. We are not cock-sure
that we can give the last word In in
terpretins the meaning Of the consti-
tuition. so shall not attempt 1t. We
do know that there exists vast diff
ference of opinion amongst the MEM
bers OF the legal fraternity. and the
best that a layman can do in such
circumstances Is to accept the opin-
Ton that seems most reasonable and
In line with common sense. The
action of the legislature In authorix-
Ing the appropriation. that of the
grand jury In cn1orsing II and that
Of the county board In paying over
the money as authorized. had the
support Of several Of the most highly
regarded lawyers at this bar and
the county board decided to accept
their opinion OF the matter In prefer
ence to the dissenting opinion. We
dld not publish the dissenting opinion,
nor the opinions In favor OF the ap-
preparation. there being no reason for
doing so. We published all the i'm
portant facts connected with the
transaction and thereby DISCHARGED
thc fun duty We owe the public. The
esscr. ion on our correspondent that
nothing was ever priatHd IN reference
IL the proposition that the county
make an appropriation to secure this
new railroad Is not borne out by the
record. He u, doubtless sincere In
making the statement. but this pa
per is on record In this matter. hav-
ins advocated appropriations by the
city and county Immediately after the
railroad proposition was submitted to
the people OF Sumter. We continued
TO urge the adoption of this plan OF
raising the required funds. from time to
time. until II was finally consummated.
We were noe Informed as to- the
course the legislative delegation would
adopt In securing the necessary legis-
latior and had no information on the
subject until the legislature had ad-
journed. Then the matter came up
before the county board and the
proceedings thereafter were given the
usual publicity.
We do not comprehend exactly
what cur wedgefeld correspondent Is
driving at-vhether he Is camping on
the trail OF the members OF the legis-
lature. as the first communication la
dicated. or is merely indulging In an
academic ami legal discussion of the
consti utional phase of the question.
III he Is after the scalps of the legis-
lators. II Is a simple proposition of pol
titles and hair pulling. but IL he Is In
earnest about getting down to the
last analysis OF the constitutionallty OF
the question. he will have To go to
some higher authority than mere
newspaper man. The lawyers. who
ought To know some law. differ widely
and are unable to agree. Probably
the Supreme Court would not be able
Co render unanimous opinion on
constitutional question of this sort
As a matter az good business policy
and common sense, we believe the ap-
propriatlons made 10y the city and
county were justified and on that ground
We advocated this policy from the
outset and now endorse the action Of
city Council and Hoard Of Commiss-
ioncrs. No money ever spent by the
city or county will bring greater bene-
fits to greater number OF people.
and II Is I'm the line of progress and
development. Finally. the county had
the money ON hand and To use II in the
manner authorized ~ the Legislature
was not illegal Had u been ncces-
sary Co issue bonds or levy special
tax the question raised "A To the legal
ity Of the appropriation would have
been more pertinent.