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

in question unequally, and without due regard
to kindred legislative enactments under which
several counties of this State have subscribed
to the capital stock of railway companies, and
issued bonds in payment of such subscriptions.
That illustrious jurist, Chancellor Kent,
laid it down as an established rule in the ex-
position of statutes, that "the intention of the
lawgiver is to be deduced from view of the
whole and of every part of statute taken
and compared together. The real intention,
when accurately y ascertained, will always pre-
vail over the literal sense of terms. When
the expression in statute is special or par
ticular, but the reason is general, the express
sion should be deemed general" (Kent
Comm. vol. l. part 8, p. 510.)
1t was urged by the learned counsel for the
plaintiffs that the words, "the people or proper
authorities Of such county or to,on," should be
construed to mean "the pecple ofsuch county,
or proper authorities of such town" In other
terms, the plaintiffs contend that "the people,"
or what is synonymous with the people, the
majority of the duly qualified electors of the
county, must first authorize the subscription
by their votes, in the case of the county; but
the Intendant and Council of the town may
subscribe directly, on behalf of the town, they
being the "proper authorities of such town.
The plaintiffs, in support of this construc-
ton, refer to the fact, that hitherto, no such
power of subscription has ever been exercised,
or even claimed by the County Commission
ers of any county in this State, and that no
county in South Carolina has ever issued its
bonds in aid Of the construction of railroads,
until after the majority of the people of such
county had, by their votes at the ballot box,
authorized such issue. The fact cited by the
plaintiffs, so far from reinforcing the plain
tiffs' construction of the words now immedi-
ately under review, would appear to be fatal
to the conclusion based upon that construc-
ton. While it is true that no county in this
State has subscribed, or issued bonds, to the
capital stock of a railroad company, except
pursuant to vote of the people of such
county, it is also true that every Act hereto
fore enacted, which authorized county to is.
sue its bonds in aid of the construction of
railroad, specially and expressly provided,
that as condition precedent to such issue,
the majority of the qualified electors of the
county should authorize such issue by their
votes The only Act of our General Assem-
| bly, in relation to county subscriptions to the
capital stock of railroad companies, which
does not expressly provide for popular vote
on the question of such subscription, is the
Act under which the defendants claim to ex-
ercise the power of subscription to such capi-
tai stock, without being authorized thereto by
a popular VOTE
In expounding statutes, we should have re.
gard to what may properly be termed the
comparative Interpretation of laws. That is,
we should not only collate and compare the
several parts Of the statute in question, but
we should compare the whole statute, with
other statutes enacted by the same legis-
lative body, in reference to the same subject,
and thus determine the real purpose and in.
tent of the legislator, both by what is express
ed and by what is omitted in the statute un-
der consideration.
It is true that the county subscriptions,
hitherto made in aid of railway construction
in this State, have been made by the authori-
ty and under the sanction of popular vote.
1t is also true, however, that the several Acts
of the General Assembly which have hereto.
fore authorized and empowered county to
make such subscription, not only provided in
expressed terms in totidem rerbis, that such
subscription should first be authorized by the
majority of the legal voters of the county,
but also supplied the means or agencies by,
and through which, the judgment of the ma
jority might be expressed, such as authorizing
the County Commissioners and the Mayors or
Intendants of towns, to call conventions of
the tax payers in the county and towns, re.
spectvely, to consider the question of submit
ting the proposed subscription to the popular
vote; and also prescribing the mode in which
such submission should be made, the appoint
ment of managers, and the manner of de-
claring the result of the vote.
All of this elaborate machinery, for securing
an expression of the popular will at the ballot
box, is wanting in the Act of the General As
sembly now under consideration. Is itnot,
therefore, conclusive presumption of law,
and of sound reason, that the General Assem-
bly,, in this Act designed that the counties in
terested in the construction of the Chester and
Lenoir Narrow Guage Railroad, might sub
scribe to the capital stock of that company
without being authorized thereto by popu-
lar vote? To conclude otherwise, is to assume
that the Legislature, in dispensing with an i'm
portant condition which it has heretofore in.
variably annexed to grant of power, meant
to qualify and restrict the exercise of the
power granted, the same as If it had expressed
that condition. 49,. 10y -.3,ri
Such assumption would be an unwarranta.
BILE depreciation of the law.making power.
The Courts are bound to hold that the Gener-
al Assembly of the State means what it says
and says what it means, although we may
sometimes be reminded that Lord Coke COM
planned. even in his day, that "great questions
have oftentimes arisen upon acts of Parlia-
ment overladen with provisos and additions,
and many times penned or corrected by men
of none or very little judgment in law" ."......
am constrained to conclude, after care
full survey of the authorities cited and the ar
guments adduced by the learned counsel for
the plaintiffs, that when the General Assem-
bly, declared, in section II of the Act to in
corporate the Chester and Lenoir Marrow
Guage Railroad Company, "That it shall be
lawful for any county or town interested in
the construction of the said Chester and Le-
noir Railroad, to subscribe to the capital stock
of said company, or of any company with
which it may consolidate or unite, such sum,
and to be payable in such manner as the peo-
pile or proper authorities of such county or town
shall deem best, determine and authorize" it
intended to vest the power Of subscription, on
behalf of the county, in the proper authori-