The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-06-06
HAS THE CITY THE POWER OF ASSESSMENT

HAS THE CITY THE POWER OF ASSESSMENT
The writer denies that the city possesses the
power of assessment for the payment of Its
debt. Corporations generally possess such
powers only as are conferred upon them by
their charters: and the powers of private
corporation are limited to the objects OF their
creation. But strict as is the law with re-
spect to private corporations, it is stricter still
with reference TO municipal bodies. A NUM-
cipal body has extraordinary powers In en-
forcing contributions from the citizens, and it
is manifestly proper. therefore, that 1t should
be restricted, severely, in its exercise, and be
confined to strictly public purpose. This Is
in accordance with manifest propriety. and
with the uniform decisions of the courts. The
writer then says:
1t has been decided repeatedly by the Sill
preme Court of the United States that city
government may not borrow money SO as to
charge citizens with the payment, without eX-
press authority to do so.
In Rogers VS.. Burlington, 3 Wallace, 654, it
was decided by o majority of the Supreme
Court that municipal corporation, authorized
to borrow money 10 aid in the construction
of an adjacent railroad. might Issue bonds to
be sold by the railroad in payment OF Its sub
scripion; but from even THIS slight ao0 moainca, @
three others Of The judges dissent, and say
that, authorized to borrow money, and author
lied to invest it IN the construction OF q public
highway the corporation may not even to tnat
end deliver its bonds to that highway to be
sold. In Bell VS.. Railroad, wallace, 59S, II
was decided that q town in Mississippi, au-
thorized to subscribe to railroad. had no au-
A. rhoff n
compromise of such subscriptions; and so,
generally, it is decided that to constitute
valid obligation there must not only be the
power to do the act, but that the power must
be exercised in strict accordance with the
forms Of It's prescription.
The present debt OF the city has, for the
most part. been contracted in the borrowing
of money to be invested in railroads, and So
OOO. 600 has been subscribed to the construc-
ton of railroads beyond the limits of the
State. But, by Its charter, says the writer
The city government is simply charged with
the "Seclrity. ,Celtdre and convenience Oh the
city," and the 'speace. order and good g0Cer1l-
meTt within the same These are It's o6Jects.
and 10 their accomplishment. 1t Is vested with
the power 10 make such assessments on prop
erty therein, for the safety, convenience. Gene-
M and adcdntQqe Of the said city, as shall al)-
pear to them eXpedient. Every office OF this
government begins and ends within the limits
OF the city; it can raise no dollar but by assess
meui. nor by assessment but for the safety,
convenience or advantage Of the city. The OBJ
legations of the city for money borrowed un-
authorized By charter are invalid; its obliga-
tlons for money so borrowed for railroards
without authority are doubly invalid; and II
this were all, upon the plainest principles OF
construction and of law, there Is no charge IN
such obligations upon individual property.
Whether there be In such obligations o
charge upon the City Council. and any proper
ty or any assets which 1t may hold, is question
able. The acts in excess OF authority by q
municipal body are usually pronounced void,
and so, unquestionably, they are with respect
to the ability Of parties to charge them on In
dvidual property; and so, upoa principle, 1t
would seem they must be with respect to the
corporation itself. But it Is scarcely to be
questioned that the city would be held charg-
able, as trustee for the creditors, to the extent
of the assets purchased BY the money borrow
ed And if to this extent the creditors may
come in upon ''the funds that may be held by
Council, they have for anything in the charter,
no right, in law or equity, to 20 one step be-
yond; and as I have said, therefore, if this
were all. there could be no charge upon in
dividual. property to pay the city debt"
TIE POWER OF TIE LEGISLATURE TO RENDER
THE CITY DEBT VALID
The writer. having presented his reasons for
believing that the city debt was without the
warrant of its charter, proceeds to show that,
.sby nothing done In either the Legislature or
the courts has it been rendered valid.'
In 1854, the validity of subscriptions to rail-
roads being questioned, an act was passed en-
titled IAN net to prescribe the mode and
terms upon which the Council should Sub
scribe, .and to confirm the subscriptions"
heretofore made In that act the forms upon
which. only, subsequent subscriptions should
he made, are declared with great precision and
circumstance, and curtly, In the concluding
clause, 1t Is announced that subscriptions al
ready made should be obligatory. Now, ii
these subscriptions be obligatory, it must be
in virtue Of this act; without the authority OF
the charter they were necessarily invalid, and
that invalidty in this act of confirmation is
admitted. Why the application for the act, or
why the passage Of the act. If the proceedings
of Council had been obligatory without?
But the act is insufficient. The State could
forgive. the offence committed by the city i'll
usurping powers not conferred by its charter,
but IL could not do more.
The State may pardon the thief, but cannot
deprive the owner OF the right to retrieve his
stolen property: it may pardon the iorger, but
not to make the bill a valid charge upon the
bank. From the most ample pardon such col
lateral consequences are not TO be assumed,
and from even Il more emphatic confirmation,
without explicit declaration Of the purpose,
not appearing in this act, IL Is not TO be intend
cd that these acts of council should thence be
made obligatory on individual property.
Nor upon the principles of an agency does
the confirmation imlElrl more. While it is the
Office Of the State TO give peace, order and
mnnicipal government to Charleston, it is not
of lis office to direct individual investments.
or Council in making such Investments, the
Slate is not the principal. but the citizens.
whose property is attempted to be taken.
They only could contlonc the acts 10 render
them obligatory, and, unless the approval Of
one principal will bind another's, no such i'm
port TO this act is to be admitted.
The writer continues rs follows:
But. if 50 intended. it is without effect. The
acts of Council without authority are void. II
citizens be bound by these subscriptions, there
fore. they are bound not by the acts Ot Coun-
Gil, bnt by this act OF the Legislature. and the
Legislature has NO such power over individual
property Whether the State can vest NIT
niclpal council. originally. with the power, at