Peninsula Enterprise, February 25, 1888

Untitled

Transportation -- Road - MaintenanceTransportation -- Road - Legislation

MR. EDITOR. -- "Modoc" published a letter in the Eastern Virginian, and in it he says: "That something must be done to better the conditions of our roads is no longer a question, but an acknowledged fact." Well, it is a pleasure to see him cutting loose from his ancient moorings, and start to come on the right side. We hope he will not go back to see how far he has gone, but keep going forward.

He objects to our representatives in the legislature drawing the bill for road purposes. This is the usual way laws are made. When it is an acknowledged fact, that some law should be made -- there is no one whose duty it is to do it but the delegates in the legislature. We voted on re-adjustment long before the bill was drawn. The Democratic party stands to-day for tariff reform, but the bill has not been drawn yet, and so it is with all other laws.

We elect delegates to represent us, because all the people could not go to the legislature, nor can all the people at home draw bills to becomes laws.

The delegates, being representative men, know (at least ought to know,) the needs of the people, and it is their paid duty to provide for them.

The meeting at Atlantic believing in the wisdom and zeal of our delegates, left them to draw the bill, and very properly so -- for there are many different road laws in the State applicable to the various counties -- they have the opportunity to get the experience of the people (through their delegates) with the different systems, and to frame one suited to our case. It will be perceived then, the amount of information within the reach of our delegates, is not possessed by any one at home. These are the reasons, the work was left to our delegates -- and if they make a mistake why we will overlook it, and send them back to repair it. If they do nothing else they can relieve us of the $4,100 that we pay now for no good purpose -- and unless the money is properly spent we want it stopped.

"Modoc" supposes the action of the meeting is not approved by the people; it is only necessary to say, that sufficient petitions have been signed by the people to insure us a good road law, and further, no meeting has been had in opposition to it, and so far only a few kickers are heard from.

"It is an acknowledged fact that something must be done."

If our delegates were ignorant or unwilling to serve the people, the meeting at Atlantic in all probability would not have entrusted the work to them.

"Modoc" has another reason for objecting to the action of the meeting at Atlantic, viz: That it proposes "taxing the people to have paid laborers to keep the road in repair." Why has he never said anything about the tax of $4,100 now collected -- 9 cents on the $100 value of property for road purposes, (a tax laid for years past,) but really fooled away in the court-house and does little or no good for the roads? Where is the good of it? We would like information on this point. We naturally infer that "Modoc" is in favor of the tax of $4,100 and its results -- even if 6,590 men are made to fool away a lot of time on the roads, and if nothing is accomplished. The $4,100 is sufficient to spend on the roads, if it was placed in work there, and was taken out of the court-house. The Judge knows nothing about the roads, and cannot unless he leaves the bench to be road master general for the county, and the lawyers, who make the motions and argue the different sides know nothing about them. Therefore put this work in the hands of the people, under the direction of the Board of Supervisors.

The meeting at Atlantic was looking to the $4,100 and its proper application, to pay "intelligently directed labor," and stop the court-house nonsense.

PROGRESS.

Untitled

Transportation -- Road - MaintenanceTransportation -- Road - Legislation

MR. EDITOR -- The subject now uppermost in the minds of our people is the wretched condition of our public roads. All admit that something must be done, but the trouble seems to be to settle upon some intelligent and definite plan. The old road system has proved to be an utter failure. The almost impassible condition of our roads sufficiently prove this fact. But some people wish to retain the substantial features of the old law. "Farmer" in your paper suggests some modifications -- among them the giving of "power to some petty aristocrats to determine what roads shall be worked, and what neglected." Here would be unlimited opportunity for favoritism. But the great bug bear which seems to affright "Farmer" is a "tax payers' rebellion." He cries "go slow." While our roads are in their present condition we must "go slow." To go fast is impossible.

But how about the "tax payers' rebellion?" Why my dear, "Farmer" we have had a "tax payers' rebellion" for lo, these many years. The poor laborer who has no cart, vehicle or team to drive upon or cut up the roads, has rebelled and is to-day rebellious against an odious and most iniquitous law, which compels him to do the same amount of labor on the public highways as his richer and more powerful neighbor who has many teams, carts, wagons and carriages to cut the roads to pieces. The surveyors of roads all over the county know this rebellious spirit prevails among the poor cartless, teamless laborers who are required to do four-fifths of the work on public highways, and hence pay four-fifths of the labor tax, while they do not receive one-tenth of the benefits.

Another suggestion has been made by "Modoc" in the last issue of the Eastern Virginian. His plan retains all the odious features of the present unjust and iniquitous road law. He wants new task masters appointed, called "commissioners," to goad the surveyor on, and compel the poor over taxed road laborer to do more work.

But never, this law will not do. Every right thinking man's sense of justice revolts at the iniquity. The old law must go. It is unjust, tyrannical, oppressive. It taxes the labor of the poor man to fill up the holes and cuts made in the highways by the carts and carriages of the wealthier classes. If you compel our poor cartless laborers to make good our roads, who will be most benefitted by the improvements? The property holders undoubtedly.

Is this just? Is it honest to take the poor man's labor, without compensation to improve property holders' estates?

To add to the poor road laborer's task, he is required to keep the roads in good condition without proper tools and implements. With good road plows, scrapes, levelers, rollers, and suitable teams, more work and better work can be done by one man than fifty men can do by our present mode of working roads.

To compel the poor laborers, without proper implements to keep our roads in good repair, finds a fit parallel in the tyrannical command of Pharaoh that the Israelites should make their regular tale of brick without straw.

Mr. Editor, I am naturally conservative in my sentiments, and generally opposed to hasty changes, but when I find upon the statute book an unjust law, oppressive to the poor, I say strike it down, and stand not upon ceremony but strike at once.

Moreover, this enforced labor system will not work -- "you can lead a horse to water but you cannot compel him to drink." You may require the laborers to go on the road, but they will not work with a will and effectively. They feel that they are performing an onerous task, and they sulk and shirk all they can. The old road law must go. Then let us have a just law and paid labor to work our roads, supported by general taxation. I would not object to a light capitation tax, provided it is not oppressive to the poor, and out of proportion to the benefits they derive from its expenditure and I firmly believe with wisely directed paid labor and proper road implements, the $4,100 (now "virtually wasted up in our roads.) supplemented by a very small capitation tax, would put our roads in good condition, and keep them in good repair. The one great desideration is drainage -- an elevated road centre, forming a watershed to each side. This is easily obtained by means of road plows, scrapes, &c., but would be very expensive, if the work is to be done by the spade, shovel, and hoe.

I heartily commend your correspondent "Progress," and bid him God speed in his efforts to give us better roads but to accomplish this the old road system must go.

JUSTICE.

Atlantic, Feb. 22, '88