Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1873-09-18
THE Y0RKVxLhK EMQU1RKR.

with unerring index as the proper authori
ties" Of the county, alone empowered to act in
the premises. Indeed, the statute itself clearly
forbids any other conclusion in declaring that
"the County Commissioners of the respective
counties shall appoint person to represent
the stock of their respective counties" (Vide
sec. I'D But even though the constitution
were less clear and comprehensive as to the
powers of County Commissioners, their au'
thority to act in the premises, is deducible
from the very nature of their office
By the Act of 1868, (Gen. Stat. S. c.,
Chap. 1S, sec. 34,) each county is declared to
be body polite and corporate. The County
Commissioners are those officers through whom
the county performs its general functions OF
government. They are charged with the To-
cal administration, and constitute the highest
political tribunal in the county. Under the
constitution and laws of this State, they exer-
else quasi judicial, legislative and executive
functions. They exercise supervisory pow
er over all the public officers of the county
When assembled as Board, they may pun
ish any open or direct contempt of their au-
thority. They are required to examine, settle
and allow all accounts chargeable against the
county, and draw orders on the county treas.
urer for the same They are empowered to
cause to be levied, collected, and paid to the
Treasurer of the county, such sum of money as
may be necessary to construct bridges therein,
and to prescribe upon what plan and in what
manner the moneys 50 to be raised, shall be
expended; to make such orders concerning
the corporate property of the county as they
may deem expedient, and to lay out and con-
struct public highways, wide Gen. Stat,
chap. 19.) They are designated by law as
the only officers empowered to borrow money
for the use of the county, to be expended for
the purchase of any real estate, and no coun-
ty can create such loan until the General
Assembly shall, upon notification by the Coun-
ty Commissioners, authorize them to create it.
The distinction attempted to be drawn, in
in the argument Of the plaintiffs, between
counties and municipal corporations, does not
appear to be very material to the main issue,
nor is it we'll founded. That county is a
"county municipal corporation" cannot we'll
be denied. wide 2. Kent, Comm. 275 Bla.
Comm. 4, Ali: People Us. Morris, Is. Wend,
325-335; Horton, Judge & Co., Us. Mobile
County School Comm. 43 Ala. Rep. 59S ;
2. Bouvier Law Die. p. 1887 And in Thom-
son u.s. Lee County, the Supreme Court of the
United States use the expression, "a county
or other municipal corporation" In that
case Mr.. Justice Martin says: "Most certain
it is, that as to all their rights, powers and
responsibilities, three grand classes OF .corpo'
rations exist: 1st political or municipal corpo
rations, such as counties, towns, cities, &c
wide also, Swami us. Williams, 2. Michigan,
427; /. Coler, on Munic. Bonds, p. 374.)
That the Legislature may authorize coun-
ty, or the proper authorities thereof, or any
other municipal corporation, to subscribe to
the capital stock of railroad company with.
in its limits, or to aid in the construction of
any other internal improvement tor the pub
lie benefit, and issue bonds to pay for such
subscription, or borrow money on the faith of
such bonds, has been repeatedly declared in
decisions of the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States, and the Supreme Court of many of
the States of our Union.
This power, so delegated, may, if the Leg
islature please, be exercised without the sane
ton of a popular vote, its validity being de-
pendent upon the intent of the legislative
body in delegating the power to the local ad-
ministration the effectiveness Of the grant of
power not being subject to impairment by
the absence of a popular ratification on the
part of the local constituency. Vide Thom-
son Us. Lee County, 8 Wallace, U. S. S. G..
Rep. p. 327; Gilman U.s. City of Sheboygan,
2 Black, $40 and Barto US. Himrod, 4 Seldom
4S3. In comment upon this last case, it is
said in Coler, on Municipal Bonds, p. 2O6,
Call general reasoning is rendered unnecessa'
ry by the explicit determination in the case
of Barto Us. Himrod. But while general
statutes must be enacted by the Legislature,
it is plain that the power to make local regu-
lations, having the force of law, in limited To-
calities, may be committed to other bodies rep
resenting the people in their local divisions, or
to the people of those districts themselves.
Our whole system of local government in
cities, villages, counties and towns, depends
upon that distinction The practice has ex-
listed from the foundation of the State, and
has always been considered prominent fea.
ture in the American system of government" "
"In Sharpless ct al Us Mayor of Philadel-
phia, 81 Pa. St. Rep. p 147-l4S, the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania says, "the Legislature
may lawfully authorize municipal corpora
tions to subscribe to the capital stock of Rail.
road companies, and such authority may be
qive,s directly to the corporate authorities, on 1t
may be made to depend upon the assent Of ma
jority Of the iecorporators." wide also City
of Bridgeport, Us. Housatonic R. R. Co., Is
Conn. ATS; Clarke u.s. City of Rochester, IA
Howard Prac Rep. p. 2l4; Bank of Rome
ys. Village of Rome, Is N. Y. Rep. p. 80; Gin
cinnati Z. R. Co. Us. Clinton county, Ohio
St. Rep. p. II; Williams vs. the New York
Central Railroad Co., Is Barb, 233-246; Carry
et aL u.s. Commissioners Of Wyandott county,
20 Ohio, p. 10)
The power to delegate authority is dis
tinct power of the State The American sys-
tenn of government is one of complete decen-
tralization, the primary and cardinal idea of
which is that local affairs shall be managed
by local authorities. In this country, begin
ming with the illustrious Marshall and Kent,
the vast preponderance Of judicial authority
is with those who affirm that railways are
public institutions of great and manifest bene-
fit to communities, and Che Legislature may
either impose taxes directly in aid of. their
construction, or delegate the power to the po-
litical subdivisions of the State, within whose
immediate territorial Jurisdiction such rail-
ways are to be constructed.
In the case of Rogers vs. Burlington, deci.
ded in the Supreme Court of the United
States, Mr. Justice Clifford, in delivering the
opinion of the Court, said: Railways, as
a matter of usage, founded on experience, are
so far considered by the Court as in the ma
ture of improved highways, and as indispen-
sable to the public interest, and the success