The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-03-04
ABIGAIL view OF THE CITY DEBE

| Gtbb0n obtained Judgment against Tue Clty
Council on paat due stock, and instituted pro-
ceedings to enforce execution. 1t was thus
| brought to the notice Of certain citizens that
there was still other past due stock to the amount
OF $3.50 900, and that the debt ofthe city general
ly was In such dlsproportion to the value OF prop
| erty.as to exercise an unfavorable influence upon
| improvements aud investments. Seeing the ca.
lamtous results of this action on the part OF the
municipal government, and the probability that
| 1t was likely 70 come to dissolution from the
overwhelming pressure OF charges 1t had incur
ed, the question was raised whether, in the ma
ture OF things, or by any power conferred upon
1t by the Legislature, the authority ever existed
in the City Council to incur the obligations which
constituted the difficulty
From the examination OF the charter, it ap.
peared that they had simply the office of local
municipal government, which was extended be-
yond the sphere OF o local government at CON-
mon law, only By the provisions that 1t should
take under its Jurisdiction the streets, lanes.
alleys, pavements, fire engines public houses,
carts, drays and the like, not strictly, perhaps,
within the range Of municipal cognizance at COM
mon law; but without the power to incur moneyed
obligations; without the power to incur oolga
cations for any other thaa the objects designated,
or for any object beyond the limits of the State;
and without power to enforce it's assessments,
even for municipal objects, by execution.
Possessed OF these facts, certain citizens, I'M
pressed with the importance Of the occasion, in
structed counsel to file bill alleging the want OF
power In the city government, and praying that
1t be restrained from the enforcement Of assess
nents TO pay these debts, and from the enforce
ment OF them by execution.
In July last, the application was made to MI
Justice Willard, in Columbia, for preliminary
Injunction, Showing the urgency OF the case and
the importance Of restraining Council until the
trial OF The cause. After hearing, the order was
refused upon the ground that the urgency did
not appear-the citizens having apparently ac'
uuiescad for so long time-and that IL was not
proper TO prejudice securities in advance oil the
question OF their validity, which would regularly
come up at the trial OF the cause. In this condl.
tIon the case las remained until the present time,
anil is now on the docket for trial, when the
Court of Common Pleas for this county shall 81.
to hear it.
The holders OF the securities scarcely coatsnd
as to the original power in Council TO incur the
obligations In question; but they do con tend that
In 1854, after the obligations were almost oil Of
them entered Into, the Legislature OF The State
undertook to confirm certain appropriations to
railroads out OF the city, made by the COUNCIL
and to give validity to the bonds Issued by the
Council to raise the money therefor. They con-
tend, also, that the validity OF this act OF conhr-
nation having come before the State in 1857, IN
the case OF Copes vs.. the Council, and that valid
ity having been sustained they as holders OF these
securities ore protected by the law OF the State,
and the decision Of the highest court In the state
tha, 1t is law. Against which, however, 1t Is con-
tended on the other side
FIRST That the act OF con 6rmatlon ln 1854 does
not give original power to the Council, II it did not
have it, 70 make the appropriations; that while
the Legislature may confirm an irregular act ola
municipal body, it could not by confirmation con.
fer original power aud therefore can no more
take the property OF individuals by approving
the act or The municipal body which assumest to
DO 1t; than It could take the same property by;n
direct act -
Second. Thattheic Of CONFIRMATION is lnsuhi-
cient to give validity toths debts ofthe city gov
eminent, for me reason that It proposes to give
validity to theoonds only heretofore Issued blythe
Council to railroads out OF the State iof none
have been issued stock alone having been Issued
TO the railroads In question,) and that under that
authorityit could not be contended there would
be validity in thebonds or stock Issued without
power, to other than the railroads III question, or
in bonds or stock Issued since. =
Third. That the case Of copesEva. Council does
not decide, that these securities are valid, but
ff,rroi oil
OF iheci,y government, because OF these appro-
prlatons to railroads, whether made With or
without authority after the State, through legls-
lstive couGrmaLlon,- had approved OF the act.
The case there was ol L motion for or inlorma.
ton in the natureof a 1'to Darrnnto at the rela-
tlon or Copes,, to forfeit. the city charter for
usurpation. In deciding that case, the court held
that n.coull not so Forfeit for reason of-the act
orcondrmatlon aud the case, going OF on tlIs
point, 1t Is oontended did not involve the issue
either of. the original pewer iu the Council to
make the subscription or the efffcacy OF the act
Of confirmation itself, or any other than the pur'
pose OF protecting the city corporation from for.
feItore OF charter for usurpation.
Fourth. 1t is contended that whatever may
have been the force Of that adjudication as be-
tween parties to the record, 1t does moi bind the
interests OF citizens not party to the record;
that 1t is not res adJudicata, nor Judgment
affecting property in which the citizens have a
certain interest; that If Council had not power to
charge them with this debt they did not acquire
the power to charge them with it through any ad-
Indication OF the question at Issue between Copes
and the Council.
Fiuh. Aud aually it is contended that these
charges have not become obligatory By any stat
ute Of linn tatons, or acqutescence for, IL origi-
nally wrong, the repetition Of that wrong capnot
make it right. II an infringement upon the
rights OF citizens to take their properly for other
than municipal purposes, it continues to be an ln-
friugemeut until through the lapse OF an tudef-
Mite period OF timeit shall have become custom; ;
and it cannot become custom unless In Its na-
ture It be reasonable, which no one ventures to
contend 1t Is.
Such Is statement OF the condition OF the case,
and the questions concerned The interests to be
affected are large. II the grounds taken by the
complainants be sustained it wal involve the loss
OF the city stock, now amounting to about nve
million five hundred thousand dollars-nomina!
value. If not sustained the city property be-
comes subject to change which, /. is hardly pro-
bable in its present condition and value, 1t can
ever pay, and which charge, from its tendency
to discourage investments emil drive funds away,
mist so diminish the value OF property that there
ran be no hone OF Its ultimate suflciency TO meet