The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1920-07-07
Mr.. SPROTT WRITES ON
PINEWOOD PROPOSITION
Mr.. Il. B. Minis,
Pinewood, S. G..
Dear Mr.. Minis:

July G, 1920.
have your letter Of June 30th, 1920
reading as follows: 'T have your let.
ter of the 26th instant and replying to
same will say that the commissioners
have been commissioned and are ready
to act upon the matter of going into
Sumter County. 1t seems that the
people of this section do not care to
have any more meetings in regard to
this matter"
am disappointed and somewhat
surprised to know that the meeting
which was promised the representa-
tives of Clarendon County has appar-
emily been called off. You will recall
that some weeks ago the representa-
tives of Sumter County were invited to
address the citizens of your section
on the advantages Of voting them
selves into Sumter County. No rep
resentatives from Clarendon County
We're invited TO this meeting, but M.
Charlton puRant, Mr.. +. I. Applet and
myself attended the meeting simply iii
the capacity of interested citizens. We
wished to hear what Sumter County
had to offer and to ask that Clarendon
County be given the same opportunity
of being heard. Those present at the
meeting seemed to be of the opinion
that the representatives from Clare,l-
don should have an equal opportunity
with Sumter Of presenting her claims
and a date was appointed for the
meeting. Two days before the meet
ing was to be held Mr.. DuRant rcceiv-
ed letter from Mr.. Baxley in which
he stated that the meeting had been
postponed indefinitely. AS we were
unable to get in touch with Mr.. Bax-
ley by telephone, I went to Pinewood
TO see him in regard to the matter and
also had talk with you ct the same
time.
You introduced me to Mr.. Baxlev
and lie told me that the meeting was
postponed because it did not suit the
representatives of Sumter to be pre-
sent on that date and that you all
wanted them to be present. Mr.. Bax-
ley assured me that the meeting would
be held at some future time and that
he representatives of Clarendon Cou,7-
ty would be given a full opportunity
TO present their side of the question.
Clarendon County does not want to
lose the Pinewood section and those of
us who have studied the proposition
DelleVe that this section will be far
better off if they remain n
part of Clarendon County. At any
rate what reasons can you have for
snppressing the discussion? Claren-
don representatives have no desire for
q. meeting of their own as Sumter had
We wish the representatives of Sum
ter County to be present and to have a
tuli opportunity to present all the
claims ..'d arguments which thew have
to offer. 1t is true they have already
mad this opportunity, but we have no
objection to them being heard again.
We wanted to discuss this matter with
the citizens of Pinewood ,and vicinity
from purely business standpoint in
order that the property holders could
hear both side9 Of the question and
then decide what they wished to do.
l am told that the area to be survey
ed contains taxable property which is
assessed at about 81 900 100000. If this
IS correct you will be assuming one
eleventh of Sumter's present and ali
future bond issues. Sumter's proposi-
ton means practically that you are
asked to buy about 1925 10000 of the
proposed issue of $4,000 100000 at par,
when the market value Of these bonds
is only about Bic on the dollar. Is this
a good business proposition?
Mr.. Noise in his speech at Pinewood
stated that they proposed to make all
of the main highways of Sumter Coun-
tv hard surface highways and to re-
place the 700 wooden bridges with con-
crete and if $2.50O,000.0O was not suf.
ficient to do this work the members
of the legislature had pledged them
selves to aut thorize sufficient amount
Of bonds to complete the job Do the
citizens of Pinewood think that Sum-
pledged Enthusiastic supDortn and