Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1888-03-14
Mistellameuns &eading.
For the YOrkville Enquirer.
VALIDITY OF TOWNSHIP BONDS.

VALIDITY Of TOWNSHIP BONDS.
The recent decision of Judge Norton,
holding that a township in this State,
cannot, under authority contained in a
railroad charter, issue a valid bond as a
subscription thereto, is exciting some APP
prehension among holders of such securi-
ties. Believing that this apprehension
will prove %unfounded when the questions
are more fully examined, | beg to submit
some points that the decree of Judge Nor
ton seems to have ignored.
The Constitution of 1865, Art. IN, Sec. s,
provides "That the corporate authorities
of counties, Townships, school districts, DC,
may be vested with power to assess and
collect taxes for corporate purposes"
The General Assembly, in 1865, CIV
Statutes, 1907 required the county com
missiOners of each county to divide their
respective counties into townships of not
less than t~hirty-siX, nor more than one
hundred square miles in extent, with GER
tain exceptions as to area. The commits
sioners were also to designate the names
of the several townships thus established,
and to affiX permanent. boundaries for the
same.
a subsequentac act civ Statutes, 1l6) de-
clared "the inhabitants Of every township
to be a body polite and corporate" for all
general purposes; and provided an elabo-
rate system of township government. Its
title reads: IAN act to organize townships
and to define their powers and privileges"
\ still later act civ Statutes, 313) de-
clared that an act entitled "An act to Or
ganize townships, and to define their
powers and privileges" be and the same
is hereby repealed, except that portion Of
the same fixing the number, names and
boundaries of the respective townships OF
the respective counties"
1t will be observed that the repeating
provision affects only the act of September
&c, 1868, civ Statutes, 146). BUTT clear
ly deprived the townships of all general
corporate power. 1t left intact the provi-
sions in the county commissioners act,
(Secs. II and y, XIV Stats. 1907, and also
Sec. / of the townships act. Let us see how
the matter then stood.
The Constitution, Art. 9, Sec. S, enumer-
ates townships" as parts of the political
divisions of the State, and vests their cor
porate authorities with. power to assess
and collect taxes for corporate purposes.
The legislative enactments fixing, the
names and permanent boundaries OF the
townships remained Of force.
Under the Constitution they are author.
lied political divisions of the State and
by legislative enactment their names and
boundayies are permanently fixed and
designated. Thus they existed when on
Dec. 18th, 1854, the General Assembly rat
flied the amendment to Art. TX of the
Constitution by adding this section: "Sec:
17-Any bonded debt hereafter incurred
by any county, municipal corporation, or
political division of this State, shall never
exceed eight per centum of the assessed
value of all the taxable property therein"
This amendment given its most limited
Interpretation, recognizes the right OF
political divisions of the State not incor-
porated, as well as those political divisions
known as counties and municipal corpora
tons, to incur bonded debts within the
same prescribed limits.
Were there any political divisions of the
State other than townships, falling with
in this designation at the date Of the
adoption of this amendments? 1t is hard
ly necessary to ask, for however numer-
Gus this class might be, the amendment
included them all.
But while the amendment ACKNOWLEDGES
the right of non-incorporated political di-
visions, i. e., townships, to incur bonded
debts, it does mot confer the poWrr' to incur
such debt.
But no one will question the authority
of the General Assembly to confer such
power since the right to confer it is recog-
niZed.
Judge Norton seems tothink that under
Art. II, Sec. 20, the township must have
existence as q corporate body before such
power can be conferred in the Act incOrpo-
rating a railroad company. If the pur-
pose of the legislature was to create two
separate corporations in one and the same
act, Art. II, Sec. 20, would most likely be
violated.
But the act in question does not, from
any language contained in it, purport to
confer general corporate powers on town.
ships. Nor is it necessary to do this.
Whenever power is given to a designated
body Of people to do any lawful act, such
body becomes a corporation by implica-
ton and without special enactment, to
perform the act and all elseincident or nee
essary to its performance. The supreme
court adopts this doctrine in State Elk. Rel.
Brown VS.. r. r.. Co., II S. c., 299-315, in
answer to the inquiry there raised, wheth-
err counties were corporations capable OF
subscribing bonds to a railroad company.
Counties have no more power than town.
ships to subscribe aid bonds to railroads.
The legislature must specially authorize
in each case. Both counties and townships
occupy the same status as to their right to
be endowed with this power, under the
constitutional amendment Of 1854. So
that theonly question remaining to be an
swered is, Can the General Assembly con-
fer the power to subscribe in the same act
by which it Incorporates the railroad COM
pany, without being obnoxious to Art. II,
Sec. 90.
The supreme court having already an
swered this inquiry affirmatiyely in sew
eral cases before it, most notably in Con-
nor VS.. Railroad Co., % S. c., 435, the law
may be considered securely established.
The language of the Court, quoting from
San Antonio VS.. Mahatfey, M u. S. Sup.
Ct.) 3l5 is pertinent. 1t says, when an
act of the legislature expresses in its title
the object of the act, the title embraces
and expresses any lawful means to achieve
the object, thus fulfilling the constitutional
injunction that every law shall embrace
but one object, and that shall be expressed
in its title" JAS. J.. HART.
March 9th, 1888.
\ HAPPY COUPLE.-A married and eX-
! pericnced friend tells us that a man should