Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1878-04-18

class of bonds decided by the United States
Supreme Court; the County Commissioners
claiming the authority to make the subscrlp-
ton. Had the Act conferred upon them that
right, there is no doubt but then they could
have issued the bonds /; but the County Com
missioners of county cannot make debt on
the county without authority from the Legis-
lature to do so Wesay there is no such au-
thority in the Act. Purchasers should have
examined into these facts, and they cannot
complain if a decision be made adverse to hol-
ders of the bonds. Cited Dillon that author
ity to issue bonds must be expressly conferred
upon the parties issuing them and on looking
into this Act, no man can say that authority is
granted to the County Commissioners. The
only words claiming to confer that power are
"proper authorities" These words certainly
do not give them the power. Express author
ity to issue bonds would certainly have been
given in words so plain that the power would
be implied by the language AS soon as doubt
arises in the mind, that proves conclusIvely
that the Act does not SO imply. What does
the language of the Act say? "People or
proper authorities" The people, !. e. the
proper authorities. Under our form of gov
ernment the people rule-that is, the voters.
The Legislature did not intend to include the
women and children, but the qualified voters.
They are the "proper authority" and they
have the power to subscribe.
Viewed in another aspect, counsel argued
that the County Commissioners are not
clothed with power to authorize, but to act.
Rev. Stat, 147, provides that when all the
County Commissioners cannot be together, q
majority may act; but the statute requires
them all to sign paper. If the County
Commissioners have not the power to con-
tract debt, the "proper authorities must be
the people. The bonds have not been signed
by all the County Commissioners only the
name of Roberts is attached to the coupons.
We have right to insist that that provision
of the statute should apply to this debt. The
debt, therefore, has not been made according
to law. The County Commissioners cannot
delegate their power. The language of the
Act restricts it to themselves.
Quoting language Of the Act, counsel ar.
gued that the county is no. authorized, by ex.
press words, to make debt. A debt cannot
be made on county except by express au-
thority. Our argument is that the debt is
void, being made without legal authority;
void, because not made by the people-the
qualified voters. ina IE5;stI
As further ground. we contend, if these
bonds are in the hands of innocent holders
without notice, those who have taken them
with notice are subject to loss. The County
Commissioners did not pretend to claim that
the bonds were issued by the people, but
that they were issued on their own motion.
Cited Dillon, that if bonds are not properly
issued they may be enjoined. -
The circumstances under which these bonds
were issued are notorious-so much so, That
there is no one in the county or State not fa-
miliar with them. Some holders say they
are unaware of fraud in the issuing Of the
bonds, and the bonds being of worthless
character, as we think, they should not furth-
er be allowed to pass into innocent hands to
work an irreparable injury to the people.
The fact has been made to appear that in.
terest has been paid on the bonds, from which
the inference may be drawn that the county
ratified the subscription by acquiescing in the
payment of interest. If the proposition that
we have assumed, that the bonds are void ab
initio, be correct, the payment of this, inter.
est gives no legal effect to the remainder.
Cited Dillon to sustain the position. The
fact that interest and part of the nds have
been paid does not estop US from proceeding.
This matter has already been before the
Supreme Court; but plaintiff wants it decided
50 as to remove all doubt. The plaintiff
charges fraud in the action of the Supreme
Court, in securing the decree in the Glenn
case. The assertion is made on one side, and
denied on the other-leaving room for doubt.
The Supreme Court, however, in its decision
in the case of Harris against Robertson,
uses this language:
1.-THE court, therefore, takes pains to observe
that the decision herein rendered relates solely to
the defect of ownership in the relator, and does
not 90 at all into the merits, which were argued
at some length. The questions came up in the
case Of Glenn VS.. County Commissioners, vi 8.
ing the motion. The two justices who concurred
| in this order, are not now members of this court
None of the points made in the case were consid-
cred, and no reasons were stated in the order.
| The court Is, therefore, really not aware, as to
what points, II any, were decided on appeal In the
case of Glenn VS.. County Commissioners, and
deems all questions of law which arose therein,
as open and undecided, except in so far as relates
| to the parties to that action"
Mr.. Hamilton, for defendants, argued that
the case being brough ht es rslatione the State,
was nc: properly before the court, and cited
numerous authorities to prove that only lin
tied class of cases could be brought by author.
ity of the Attorney General, and that this is
not included in any designated class. The
case being improperly brought, and not prop
erly in the Court, he contended that, for that
reason alone, the injunction asked could not be
granted.
Referring to construction of the language
of the Supreme Court, from which it is infer.
red that that tribunal regards the questions
involved in the case of Glenn against County
Commissioners as open and undecided, coun.
sci contended that it is decision, and that
the Supreme Court does not say it is not. He
contended that in rendering that decision, the
Supreme Court adopted the language Of the
Circuit Judge in the Court below. and in
affirming his decree, it was unnecessary for
the Supreme Court to file an opinion.
These bonds, contended counsel, were
bought by the holders after the decision in the
Glenn case was rendered, as 10 fact. the bonds
were not issued until after that decision. The
opposition say We had notice of the Irregular
ity of issuing the bonds by the County Com
missioners-the only thing to affect bona fde
holders. But what was the noticei 1t ap.
peared on the face of the bond The next
notice they had was the remittitur now on file
in the office of the Clerk of this county. Thst
renittitnr said it was the judgment Of the Su
preme Court, and the law in the case, excusing
all irregularities.
The passage of the retiring Act, by sub
sequent Legislature, thereby recognizing the
validity ofthe bonds, was next read and allu-
| ded to as g notice 10 the people that the bonds