The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1918-02-26
AT WHOSE SUGGESTION? WHY?


g legislature taking the management
81 of the water and light plants out OF
4 the hands of the City Council and
turning the same over to Commits
sioners of Public Works. 1t has
been stated that this amounts to
little as a matter OF law as the
Commissioners of Public Works are
under the control of the City Coun-
Ell, and can only act with their au-
thority. This is a serious mistake in
the Interpretation of the law. We
will discuss the absolute and arbi-
5 trary powers which pass to the Com
missioners in another article to be
printed Friday. We are now inter-
\ ested in knowing why the change
was made, and who was responsible
for it.
We asked in our last issue who
3 fatheredy this amendment to the law
as i: stood. We believe that the
81 daily papers stated that the amend
ment, at least in the Senate, was in
troduced by Senator Nickles. Now
q Everybody knows that Senator Nick
les has never had any close connec-
+;ou with the city council, ne has
! never been a member Of that body.
He has not been the city attorney,
5: and so far as we konw his connec-
lion with the city government in
( Abbayille has not been such that, OF
his own account, he would have had
. change made of this character
without somebody asking that 1t be
done.
IN the other hand DR.. Neuner
81 has been a member of the city coun-
scI He served on the water anu
light committee if we mistake not
for one or two terms during Which
@ time the water and light plants maoe
IS so much money that city park was
.:bought with the overplus and was
named for the doctor, and II "a'
filed with rabbits, owls and othe'
q. 4 uiee-lookinp animals. He found M
fanlt with the management OF lhes'
enterprises by the city council a
lonp as he was a member OF tn
council and had them in CHARGE 81
4 far as we have heard. But, If ther
was any reason why there shoui'
have been a change in the law
y. wonld seem to us that he, rathe
than Senator Nickles, should nav
known of the reason and shoul
therefore, have introduced the bill
Why did he not do so? Was ther
an effort to cover up someoody
Z tracks, and would the matter az
near innocent looking if it cam
q from the other side of the law-maF
ing body? We take it that DR.. Neu'
fer was in full accord with the Bill
as introduced and had full know
edge about it. Representative Moor
tells US that he asked his colleagu
4 !, for information about this propose
law and the matter was explalne
by DR.. Neuffer, and that he (M
Moore) supposed it was wanted b
( the city. If DR.. Neuffer was in II
vor of the bill, why did he not il
troduce it in the house and give h
reasons for so doing? Why did f
not advocate the change when !
was on the council, wien it was h
6 duty to get for the people of Abb
vile the best management possib
for these enterprises.
We have stated, and the recort
. will prove that we speak the trut
/. that the water-works plant in Abb
vile was not a success when MAJ
u,.ged by these Commissioners; tn
large sums of money were lost
e,its management by the Commission
!. ers, while on the other hand, it
h claimed by Mr.. Anderson's frien'
in the city council that the plan
have been a financial success und