The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1914-11-04

To the Editor of the News and COu-
rier: 1 have read with care and inter-
est the statement of Mr.. Rhett in this
mornings paper anent the Cotton
Bond bill and desire to submit my
views thereon, which request be CIV
en- equal publicity with his state
ment.
The legislature did not overlook
Section 6, Of Article 10, but on the
contrary rejected the bill offered by
Mr.. Rittenberg. of Charleston, because
of it's conflicting with such section and
article. The proposed bill does not
purpOrt to lend the credit of the State
or to pledge the credit of the State
| for the benefit of any individual,
company, association or corporation"
but merely proposes to obtain the
consent Of the people that the bonds
be issued and that upon such con-
sent being given undertakes to pro-
vide certain machinery to prevent
fraud and establishes classification
for protection and safety.
1t was not deemed necessary to
amend or to propose to amend the
Constitution in the respect or manner
that Mr.. Rhett seems to think.
The procedure adopted was entirely
in accord with the provisions Of Sec
tion L., Of Article 10, both as to the
object and course Of the bill.
careful reading Of Mr.. Rhett's ar
ticle fails to disclose any constitution
al barrier or to throw any new light
or view upon the question. All Of
these questions which are common
place and would be thought of by the
average opposing member of the gem
eral assembly were carefully gone
over and found to be unsound; in
other words, Mr.. Rhett has raised no
question as to the legality Of the is
sue that has not heretofore been con-
sidered and disposed Of.
Now as to question OF justice rails
ed by Mr. Rhett: The law permits a
reasonable classification and it must
be evident that the proposed law has
made wide and reasonable classif-
cation. 1t includes the only wealth
producers Of the State, and no wrong
will be suffered by others, for all will
share in the hoped-for benefits of the
bill.
The people Of the State have been
given every opportunity to familiarize
themselves with the provisions of the
bill, the matter has been under dis
cussion for three weeks, undOubted-
ly those opposed to it's passage have
been heard in and around the leSis-
have been representatives of the bank
ing and cotton mill interests. Does
Mr.. Rhett seriously compare the dis
tress and welfare Of the farmer with
the few persons engaged in the lum-
Der and naval stores business? Mr..
Rhett says: "No one would buy one Of
these bonds without a decision from
the Supreme Court" which, he says,
would involve months of litigation
and would be found to be worthless
in the end. Why then the alarm and
worry?
Mr.. Rhett asks, is it wise? And
proceeds to show that because it is
proposed to lend 8 cents, including
carrying charges, that it is not; over
looking the fact that the carrying
charges are about the difference be-
tween the present price of middling
cotton and the proposed lending val
ne. Would it not be better that the
whole property Of the State be
charged with some future debt than
that the whole class of wealth-prO-
ducers should be compelled to should
er the entire burden?
And does Mr.. Rhett mean to stir up
race prejudice in an attempt to de-
feat what offers the only hope to the
citizens of the state, and to seek to
prejudiciallly racialize the distressful
condition of all the people of the
state?
The legislature has done it's best.
Where was Mr. Rhett with his views
when the select committee invited
him to appear and assist them in
working out some plan to allay inn
pending disaster" The committee re-
ccivcd the information that he could
not attend. Why did he wait until
this late day to express his doubts of
and fear as to the wisdom of the pro-
posed measure?
1t i'll becomes the citizens Of Char
lesion to oppose this bond issue when
the city Of Charleston has been, up t.
this time. the sole recipient of Il