The Columbus commercial. (Columbus, Miss.) 1893-1922, 1898-11-13

of Mississippi in Carroll county VS.
Hawkins, 80 Mississippi 755, con-
strung Section IA, Article XII Of
the Constitution Of 1869, held to the
contrary Of the authorities above
quoted. Granted, but rejoin that,
that case was taken 10 the supreme
court Of the United States where it
is reported as Carroll county VS.
Smith Ga bond-holder,) III United
States, $50. The United States SUI
4 preme court reversing the Missis-
sippi supreme court, held that:
"The assent of two-thirds of the
qualified voters Of the county, at an
election lawfully held for that pur-
! pose, to a proposed issue of munici-
pal bonds, intended by that instru-
ment, means the vote Of two~thirds
Of the qualified voters present and
voting at such election in its favor,
as determined by the official returns
ofthe result"
To the same effect, is, Knox coun-
ty VS. Ninth National Bank, t47, U.
S. 81, A controlling consideration
with the court in the case of Carroll
county VS. Hawkins was that, It was
constituting a constitutional inhibi-
ton upon counties, cities and towns,
becoming stockholders in, or lend
ing their credit to COMPANIES, Asso-
CATIONS OR CORPORATIONS, and not
as in the instant case of a city vot-
ing money or bonds for the police
purpose of improving the sanitation,
extending the benefits of water and
rendering more secure the property
of its citizens against fire.
But, conceding the rule announced
in Carroll county VS. Hawkins SUPRA,
yet to be the law of this state, still,
the friends of the measure to be
submitted, are not prejudiced by the
enforced absence on election day,
of certain of the registered voters.
For, as said by Simrall, J, in deliv-
ering the opinion of the court in that
case. "In ascertaining, therefore,
/ the result of an election requiring
two-thirds of the qualified voters of
the county to assent thereto, we
think that the registration books
are competent evidence on the point
of the number of qualified voters in
the county. 1t would be open how
: ever, to proof to show DEATHS, RE-
! MovALs, SUBSEQUENTLY, INCURRED,
DIsQUALIFICATIoNs, etc.
In Madison county VS. Brown, 81
Mississippi, 6Si, Woods, c. I. de-
7 livering the opinion of the court
constituting Section IA, article XII
] Constitution 1869, and marking the
distinction between the constitu-
: tional limitation imposed upon the
e power Of counties or municipalities
f where as in one case, the Limitation
is determinable by any person, by
/. reference to a fixed, absolute anC
f self-evidencing record, to wit, the
t assessment rolls Of counties, anC
' where, as in the other case the limit,
alton is detesminable by the variable
j, and ever changing registration list
!, which is no where declared to be
= fixed standard importing absolut
r verify, said, "the power to issu,
e bonds in election cases, is not re
ferred by the organic law to any alb
J., solute, fixed standard"
= Continuing, thecourt says. ether
Y is no creation, or hint of any crea
- ton, in Section IA. Article XII, o
Y the constitution, of any fixed stan
dard by reference to which the linn
/, itation imposed in that section an
- article will be self-evidencing." o
d as more pointedly stated in the con
= cluding paragraph of the brief o
o Judge Wiley P. Harris, attorne,
d for the appellee IN said case: 81
e the constitution had provided tina
If two-thirds of the votes, AS sHowl
BY THE BOOKS OF REGISTRATION
: should be required, this might hav
}. brought the case nearer to tina
e where the constitution fixed th
i standard, as in the case OF a refer
g ence to an assessment roll"
i Finally, 1t must not be overlooke,
n that Section IA, Article XII, Con
.e stitution 1869, now is not part OF
h but was for a reason omitted iron
y our present (tS90) constitution.
" Hence, the language of the &C
y of February, End. 1898 to wit, Z"
i two-thirds vote of the qualities
n electors Of said city," will be con