Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1879-04-17
THE BONDS OF YORK COUNTY
DECREE or JUDGE PRESLEY.

DECREE OF JUDGE PRESLEY.
STATE OF SOUTH CARoLINA.-Y DIRK COUNTY.
The State er. rel. F. II. Brown ct al. VS.. The
Chester and Lenoir N. g. r. r. Company
Fo1. Relief and Injunction.
This case was heard by me on the pleadings,
which, together with the Acts Of the Legisla-
ture and the case Of Glenn ct al., hereafter
referred to, sufficiently shew the facts and is
sues involved.
have always regarded the said case of Glenn
ct al., Us. the County Commissioners as final
decision of the whole matter now involved
The Circuit Judge certainly decided it upon its
merits, and the motion to reverse his judgment
was dismissed by the majority Of the Appeal
Court, from which Willard, A. j., dissented /;
and assuming that the action of the majority
confirmed the construction of the statute made
by the Circuit Judge, he fully states the rea-
SONS for his dissent.
In my opinion, the terms of the Act clearly
fall within the class of cases in which the word
"or'' is construed to mean "and." Any other
construction would make it confer power eth
er upon the ''people,' or upon the ''proper au-
thOrities'' to make the subscription in ques-
tion. But ''the people'' could not possibly ex-
ercise such a power without the concurrence
of ''the proper authorities unless some other
agency were expressly provided for that pur-
pose. No such agency was provided in this
case. 1t is, therefore, plain that the Act in
tended that the people and proper authorities
should not act in the alternative, but that
both should act in concurrence.
Since the case of Glenn ct al. vs.. the Coun-
ty Commissioners was decided, matters have
transpired of which Courts are bound to take
notice, and which change very materially the
aspect of the case. Three general elections
have taken place at which the people Of York
county, if the majority had so desired, might
have elected County Commissioners who would
have surrendered, or offered to surrender, to
the Railroad Company, the stock which had
been issued to the county in exchange for the
bonds, which are again called in question. But
no such action was taken, and the Commits
sioners still hold the said stock as the proper
ty of the county, and do not, in their answer,
even now, offer to surrender it.
The Act prescribes no special mode by which
the proper authorities were to ascertain the
sense of the people, and it is now too late to
do that by a vote. The road has been built
through the county, and it is in daily oper-
alton. The people who are enjoying it's con-
veniences and advantages, may now very will
lingly vote to be freed from tax to pay for
it and that without any danger of being
thereby deprived of it's benefits. Their wish
in the matter, at this time, is not a question
material to the proper decision of this case.
The true issue is, whether or not the majority
approved of the subscription at the time it
was made. That could not be settled salts
factorily, either by vote now, or by the testi-
mony of any number of witnesses, merely
stating their opinion that the people would
have voted for or against the said subscrip-
tion. What they have done OF failed to do, at
the general elections heretofore held, is the
only test now proper.
I, therefore, hold that their long acquies-
cence has ratified the action of their County
Commissioners.
Further: AS no clause Of our State Constl-
tuition prohibits the Legislature from authori-
zing the s'proper authorities'' of counties or OF
towns to make such subscriptions, even with
out any vote, or other concurrence by the people,
it could have conferred that power in the said
Act if it so wllled. Not having previously
conferred it, such subscription, made in ex-
cess of authority, or even without authority,
might thereafter be ratified by the Legisla-
ture. If 80, then the Act Of March 8, 1879,
which authorizes special tax in York county
to retire the bonds which had been so issued,
is a clear recognition of their validity, ana
consequently cures all excess OF authority ny
the Commissioners.
cannot assume that the said Act was pass
ed by the Legislature without its having had
full knowledge of all the facts of the case.
The Appeal Court had previously rendered It's
decision in the said case of Glenn ct al. vs..
the County Commissioners, and in that case
the excess of authority by the said Commits
sioners was fully and plainly set forth and dis
cussed. It was matter Of public nOtOriety,
freely discussed every where in the State, and
must have been we'll known, not only to the
members of the Legislature from York coun-
ty, but to the members generally. Besides, it
was the duty of the Legislature, before pass
ing such an Act, to enquire strictly into the
facts of the case, and in the absence OF all
proof to the contrary, I am bound to presume
that such duty was properly performed.
Other matters subsequent to the said Act,
all concur to shew acquiescence by the people,
and further confirmation by the Legislature.
Even the Act of 1878, which suspends for
wear the said Act of 1875, makes it manifest
that until such suspension, the Commission
ers had been collecting the tax which the
said Act of 1875 authorized; and after such
suspension, the tax Act of 1878, still permit
ted the levy of a tax to pay the coupons on the
bonds in question.
Whatever, therefore, may be the force. of
the decision in the said case of Glenn ct al.,