Peninsula Enterprise, May 23, 1885

The Court-House Question.

Architecture -- Courthouses

MR. EDITOR. -- The only question to be considered in connection with the change of the county seat may be briefly stated thus: Will the gain in convenience to the community be a fair equivalent for the cost? In other words "is the play worth the candle?" In this interrogatory the whole issue is made up, with nothing complicated involved in its decision. The gain in convenience must be determined by the relative accessibility of the two competitive sites. -- Upon this point this statement may safely be accepted as approximately true; that, if the new location be adopted, the saving in distance to the upper Parish people will be less than two miles, while it will subject those of the lower Parish to the hardship of an additional six miles ride. These figures represent the actual loss and gain involved in the proposed change of the court-house, and put the gist of the controversy in a nut-shell. And what is it worth in dollars and cents, this gain of less than two miles to one section, offset with a loss of six to another?" Is it worth forty thousand dollars? twenty? ten? Indeed, in this practical view, is it not clear, that even if it involved no expense, the county seat ought not to be changed. I cannot doubt that this position will receive the popular endorsement.

But we must also look at this question from another stand point and consider to what extent public convenience will be promoted by locating the court-house on the railroad. Great emphasis has been laid upon this point, and I confess that, at the first blush. This argument deemed formidable. Our ideas at that time were based upon mere conjecture, without facts or figures to guide us. But now, since this claim has been subjected to the crucible of actual, practical test, it is proved to be without foundation, -- "the baseless fabric of a vision." The "Iron horse" on this line has been with us for nearly a year, and is now making "the welkin ring" to the tune of six trips daily, and I confidently ask, with what result! It has demonstrated beyond all question the utter failure of our people to avail themselves of this "boasted convenience." Of all the vast crowds who have attended court during this time, not one person in one hundred has utilized the railroad. If these statistics be trustworthy, the conclusion is irresistible that the railroad may be, logically, eliminated as a factor in the solution of the court-house problem. To deny this, and to assert that the result will be different, with the county seat on the railroad, is to claim that the insignificant hack fare from the station is the bug bear which controls the mode of travel at present. This we utterly repudiate. With the railroad, which was the cornerstone of this whole project, thus removed, we sweep away at the same time the foundation upon which rested the appeals and misrepresentations of its self constituted champion and spokesman. This was his hobby, the fountain of his inspiration, the Alpha and Omega of all his pompous periods and elaborate rhetoric. But now, his wings are clipped, he has lost his vitality and spirit, as is plainly shown by his supplementary letter in the last ENTERPRISE.

In conclusion we hope that all whose minds are still shadowed with doubt, will ponder the cost. Forty thousand is no trifling sum. If we remove the county seat, the oppressive taxation to meet the necessary expenditures will stick to us for years, tighter than the shirt of Nessus. There can be no escape from it. If, however, we stand by the old site, the amount of money needed will be as nothing in the comparison. The present depressed condition of the industries of the county, the financial complication and distress which may result from the recent decisions touching our State debt, and especially the unpromising outlook, at this time, for the truck crops and oyster interests of our county, all combine to admonish against the imprudence and peril of incurring a heavy debt under the circumstances. We should also remember that the bank, mercantile, and general business failures daily reported in the papers, are not unfrequently, heralds of an approaching financial crisis, and when it comes, the shock will be sorely felt in every hamlet throughout the country. A VOTER.

Untitled

Architecture -- CourthousesInfrastructure -- Public - Government : Bonds

MR. EDITOR: -- As a plain man, I wish to call the attention of those who are concerned in the welfare of this county, before it is too late, to the plain and only question involved in the coming election "if whether the courthouse shall be moved from the present site or remain where it is." And in doing so, I wish to express what I believe to be the honest conviction of nine-tenths of our tax payers and that, "that this is no time to be increasing taxes," certainly not for luxuries, as the new courthouse will be, as no one with the court trial docket of to-day and half a century ago before him, had the temerity to say that more or better room is needed for the dispatch of public business now than then when the present building was ample for all purposes. The sentiment then of the people being opposed to an increase of taxes it becomes us to look well into the question evolved from the proposition upon which we are to vote -- and it is found to be plainly one of "shall we build or not?" for by voting for removal we necessarily vote to build -- there being no place to convene a court upon the lands to which it is proposed to move until buildings are erected. While voting for it to stay where it is, leaves it in our power to keep it as it is -- in other words not to build -- and how, by simply voting for no man for supervisor who does not pledge himself to undo the unauthorized doings of the present Board. The county is not yet committed to their measures of luxury and ease -- no contract has been made for the building -- no plan even adopted -- no money borrowed! (a most shameful and outrageous proposition,) nothing done which a new Board elected upon the question of "build or not," smothered up in the proposition before us, cannot correct in five minutes after its first meeting. If a tax has been levied, it is so far not large, and if not collected, it can remain so, and if so, it can't exceed a few hundred dollars which may readily be applied to the repair of the clerk's office which is really needed. It behooves then, all the good people of this county who are opposed to an increase of taxes, and who have a proper appreciation for the economic policies, and financial tradition of their fathers, whose public examples were plain and useful, and who at all times shunned the idea of pledging the county's credit in a bond for borrowed money to vote next Thursday against this scheme of removal, which is but one to build and to see to it that no one be made a supervisor, who will not at once set to work to annul the proceedings of the present Board which had for its object an increase of taxes for no good purpose.

UPPER PARISH.