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

guage of the 11th section Of the Act charter
ing the Company.
J.F. Hart, Esq, representing the Railroad
Company, followed Major Hamilton. The
first question to determine, he argued, is the
power of the County Commissioners to make
the subscription. We claim that the power
was fully conferred to make the subscription
as they did. The Act resolves itself into one
of inquiry into the legislative intent. AS to
the eleventh section of the Act, if the Legls-
lature had intended the exercise of the pow
er conferred by that section in any other man
ner, it would have so expressed it; otherwise,
the Act would be nullity. Article four of
the Constitution, Section nineteen, provides
that the qualified electors shall elect board
of County Commissioners, and prescribes their
duties. 1t may be serious question whether
or not the Constitution did not confer Jurls.
diction directly upon the commissioners to
subscribe. But whether it did or not, the
legislative charter certainly did authorize the
county to subscribe; and if we couple one
with the other, it gives the power to sub
scribe, if jurisdiction gives power. That Ju-
risdicton extends over roads, highways,
bridges and ferries, and railroad is high
way.
Unless the Legislature is restricted by the
Constitution, it could confer upon the County
Commissioners the right to make the subscrip-
ton. 1t depends upon the construction CIV
en- that section of the Constitution. we
might infer from that that the County Com
missioners exercise judicial powers. In this
case, the Legislature granted that power, and
they had the power to do so. 1t is not to be
presumed that the Legislature intended any
Act to be without meaning. There is no
machinery in the charter providing for an
election. The County Commissioners could
not legally have ordered an election. There
was no legislative authority for an election.
The Act was nulity, unless the County Com
missioners had acted Cited Vattel to main
tain position. Counsel then argued that the
words of legislative Act declare its right
meaning, and that the meaning of this Act
given by the County Commissioners, is the
proper construction to place on 1t.
We're the County Commissioners the prop
er authorities ?" This has already been de-
cided in the case of State against Lartigue.
A better decision, however, eau be given.
The Legislature itself can give Interpretation
to its own acts. The Act authorizing the re-
tirlng of the "bonds of York and Chester
counties"-so the Act of the Legislature de-
nominates them-is of itself an exposition OF
the original legislative intent.
Counsel next cited authorities in regard to
ambiguous words and expressions in legisla-
tive enactments. We claim there can be no
question about the construction of this Act.
Subsequent Acts of the Legislature, in the
wears 1875, 1877 and 1873, have recognized
these bonds as legal bonds of York county.
If the eleventh section of the Act charter
ing the Company gave the County Commls'
sioners power to subscribe, it carried with 1t
the power to issue bonds aud to pay interest
on the bonds. We claim that the right to
issue bonds carries with it the right to attach
coupons. This Act, however, is no longer
open to construction. It's intent has been de-
cided by judicial tribunals. and the Leglsla'
ture has made valid, by subsequent legislation,
what may have been incomplete in the orig
inal Act. The subsequent Acts may we'll be
termed validating Acts. Counsel cited de-
cision in Belo against Forsythe county, and
Beloit against Morgan. In the latter case,
& WAL, 623) the Legislature had passed an
Act consolidating two towns, providing that
the new town should be liable for the bonded
debts of either old corporation. One of the
towns had issued bonds, held to have been
issued without authority. The court decided
that the Act of the Legislature consolidating
the two towns, was validating Act.
Counsel then cited numerous authorities,
maintaining the position that subsequent Acts
of the Legislature give force to the Act
granting the charter, and proceeded: There
has been judgment in this case, binding on
every taxpayer in York county, and quoted
similar case in the courts of Iowa, in which
judgment had been obtained against citizens,
though not parties to the suit.
The decision in the case of Glenn against
County Commissioners, whether decided right
or wrong, has passed beyond the pale of dis
cussion, and in that case the decision of the
Court is as valid as Acts of the Legislature.
The State can pass no law impairing con.
tract On the faith of that decision contracts
have been made-and subsequently they have
received the highest sanction, which cannot
be vitiated by future acts of the courts. AS
to the railroad which represent, the bonds
have passed from its hands, being deposited
as collaterals, for its debts, and no court can
decide against them without impairing rights
acquired by citizens. Contracts existing at
the time cannot be revoked by Acts of the
Legislature or decisions of the courts. The
Supreme Court of the United States has held
that while bound to follow the decisions of
the State Courts, yet in case like this, where
there may be two decisions, the first recogniz-
ing right, and the subsequent one repudia-
ting it, the first decision must be regarded as
the valid one Otherwise, where lights have
been acquired under one decision and dvest-
ed by the other, the Federal and State Con.
stitutions would both be violated in the i'm
pairment of the contract.
Further: the acts of 1875, 1877 and 1878
in relation to these bonds, furnish not only an
exposition of the legislative intent, but be-
ing in pari materia, must be construed as if
enacted as a part of the original act under
which the bonds were issued. Acts of such
a nature are to be construed as one Act.
They we're passed by the same Legislature
and relate to the same subject. Suppose you
tack together the various legislative enact
ments upon this subject, as if passed togeth-
er, would any court, for a moment, hesitate to
say that they conferred the right upon the
County Commissioners to subscribe?
Col Simonton, representing guarantors,
said To such an extent, and so ably has
this case been discussed, will be as brief as
possible.
First, may it please your Honor, under the
form of proceeding as adopted in this case,
it will be impossible for you to grant the in
junction asked, as to private parties or rail-
road corporation. The relators should have
brought this action in their own name In
stead, they come covered by the name Of the