The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1912-07-20

the city and s12, 700 from the county
the securing of the rights Of way
mas been more expensive than antici-
pated and by the time the BALANCE Of
the right Of way through the city.
from the terminal to the limits, and
thence two miles southwark has been
purchased The funds available will
probably have been exhausted and
the deficit will have to be made up by
public spirited citizens
5. Ii should be borne i'm bind Ivy
those who have condemned the legs-
lative delegation for securing the en-
actment of the enabling act, the grand
jury for recommending the payment
of the money by the county board.
and the supervisor and members Of
the county board for paying over the
money To the City of Sumter. that it
was business proposition that men
of admitted business sagacity and un-
questioned personal and official integ-
rity decided as seemed 10 them 10 the
best interest Of the county. of which
the city of sumter is part.
.. 1t should also be borne in
mind that the city of Sumter appro-
priated 100000 in The belief that the
indirect returns from better rail
road facilities and the growth result
ing therefrom would repay the in
vestment since the direct returns i'm
the way Of taxes to be paid the city
Ivy the railroad on its property with
In the city can never lie sufficient to
pay interest on the original invest
metnt Of $4,000, to say nothing of
ultimately repaying the principal.
While on the other hand the building
of the railroad will add 100000. per-
haps $780, ,00o. to the taxable property
OF the county, the revenue from which
will reimburse the county. principal
and interest. within a few years for
the $4,000 appropriation. In ad-
dition to the direct and immediate
returns the county obtains from the
building of the railroad, there are to
be considered the indirect and Incl
dental benefits derived by the sec
tion of the county that will obtain
railroad facilities it heretofore lacked.
10. 1t should also be remember
ed that the city of Sumter pays some
thing more than one-third of the
county taxes--mOre than $4,000 per
year into the county ordinary fund
not a dollar of which is spent i'm the
city. save that paid to county officials
as salaries and the amount expended
Tor court expenses, the balance going
toward maintenance of roads and
other county expenses. from which
the county derives the direct benefit
and the city only the indirect and Incl
dental. Therefore, since the city
pays more than one-third of the total
county taxes the city is paying more
than one-third of the $4,000 appro-
priation by the county in addition to
the $4,000 appropriated by the city.
This issue of what the town does in
comparison with what the county
does Is not of our seeking. but since
| II Is being banded back and forth
from one end of the county to the
other, 1T is well to get the cold facts
on the record.
Every man who has condemned the
members Of the legislature, Supervis-
or county board and all others who
nave been instrumental in putting
through the $4,000 approximation
should ask himself what he would
havSDlone had he been in the place
or these public servants. Would you
nave done as they did. looked at the
matter as business proposition and
made use of your opportunity to
huiid up the county and the city
which is part Of the county-and q
not inconsiderable tax payer? Or
would you have taken narrow view
of the matter. turned down the prom
osition. thereby preventing the ac-
QUESTION of an enterprise that would
increase the taxable property of the
county Immediately to the extent of
more than 100000 and opening the
door Of opportunity to the county
seat to become larger and more
prosperous trade-ccnter and a still
bigger taxpayer into the county treas
ury?
Would you have voted To secure tho