The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1921-04-20

|
| Clinton, came from their box, and in
the original bond issue the largest af-
| firmativc vote cast in the county came
from this same box. Why should this
| precinct now be expected to pile up
an opposition vote? The vote is the
answer, Clinton was involved.
| AS regards Clinton and it's adjacent
territory to which The Advertiser re-
| fcrs, the vote is easy to understand.
For instance, the vote at Renno was
solid against both projects because
! the people in that section feel that
they Lave never gotten square deal
in the matter of roads and they are
about right. The difference between
LaurCls and Renno is that the former
is in favor Of highway Improvement
Gr it doesn't touch Clinton) while
the latter opposes highway construc-
ton anywhere and voted consistently
on both bills Tuesday and in the same
proportion against the original refer
endum bill when it first came up in
the county. In a large measure the
same is true of Hopewell because the
folks there are mad, feeling that theiI
territory has been neglected, and they
sat down on both projects. The Lang
ston precinct, which is four miles
from the Musgrove road, voted for
the Musgrove road in the lower end
while the opposition came from the
upper edge Of the township which was
not affected. These sections like many
others in the county, had derived lit
tie benefits from the bond issue and
were not enthusiastic over building a
road for Owings, Laurens or Clinton.
The Advertiser says that the fav-
orable l@urcns vote was probably cast
to give Clinton an arithmotical share
OF the benefits derived from the taxes
IT pays" While we are ready to ad-
NIT that the policy Of returning to
tho territory the proceeds OF taxes
paid could not be completely adhered
to. we feel that this section should
have received more than we have.
The town OF Clinton pays onc-seventh
OF the taxes iii the county, and in re-
turn, what are we getting? Includ-
ing the $4,000 voted for the Owings
road, and the $4,000 for the compile
tion Of the kinards- Laurens highway,
$5S2,0O0 has been placed in the hands
OF the commission and approximately
81 miles Of roads built, the cost per
mile averaging over 81 900. This cX-
pcnsivc cost OF production is in very
large measure, the reason for the
strong opposition expressed over the
county against the two bills.
In conclusion, we are glad we can
state that Clinton has always voted
for road Improvement in the county
though we have realized little Of the
benefits The issue for the MuSgrovc
road was forced from here as The
Advertiser asserts and our CONNER
cial organization unanimously adopt
ed the two projects when they We're
ordered by the legislature Why didn't
the laurcns Chamber of Commerce do
likewise and work for the two bills as
We did? The road had been promised
at the beginning Of the bond issue and
with all the money spent. had never
been touched. 1t was for this reason
that Clinton took the initiative and
sent a committee to Columbia TO con-
fer with the county delegation, and
had such action not been taken the
MnSgrovc road would never have been
mentioned and in all probability the
0win@s road would never have been
voted upon. The referendum of the
TWO hills was due to the county scna-
tor who opposed a direct appropria-
ton on the grounds Of economy, yet
allowed" $4,000 appropriation to
20 through without referendum for
!urhcr road development
The Clinton vote for the Owings
rond leading into Laurcns was 70
vcj, ,: no. The l.aurons vote on the
MUSarOvc road leading into Clinton
w@s 80 yes, 1913 no.
We Will leave il to the public as to
where the scales Of prejudice" pro
vail in the greatest prepOndcrance-
Clinton or Laurens.-Thc Clinton
Chronicle.