The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1902-10-29
AN APPEAL
To the Qualified Voters Of South
Carolina.
AN IMPORTANT sTATEIENT
ships in the Upper Part OF
the State on a Vital
To the Voters Of South Carolina:
Natter.


Lawn in the county OF Grcenrj!le:
Cokesbury, Ninety-SiN and Cooper in
the county Of Greenwood: Sullivan in
the county OF LaurenS, and Huiett
and Pine Grove in the county OF Salu-
da, hereby call to your attention the
proposed amendment to Article VII
Section II Of constitution OF 1925,
which seeks 10 destroy the corporate
existence OF the said townships. and
respectfully ask that you vote in favor
Of the said proposed constitutional
amendment. for the reason that it is
the only hope to relieve the taSpay-
erS Of the said townships from the
payment of an enormous debt for
bonds issued in aid Of railroad which
never was built. and for which they
have received absolutely no conSidera-
ton. The said bonds werc Illegally
issued in the beginning, as the citi-
zenS Of said townships respectfully al
geand will endeavor to show. and the
said Indebtedness has been declared
null and void by the supreme court OF
South Carolina. whose decision should
be accepted as final and conclusive by
all loyal citizens Of the State. the de-
ciSion of any other court to the con-
trary Notwithstanding. So then the
taxpayers Of these townships claim:
% That there is no moral consider
alton for the said Indebtedness, mas
much as the conditions prescribed by
the Act upon compliance Of which
alone the bonds should be issued. were
never complied with and the people OF
these townships have received abSo-
lutely no consideration for the said
enormous debt. the principal alone
of which amounts in the neigh5or-
hood of one hundred thousand dollars,
and which has been drawing interest
at seven per cent. for something like
sixteen years.
(2) That the said debt does not con-
stitute legal Indebtedness against
the saio townships if we accept as f.
nal the decision Of the supreme court
Of South Carolina, which it is our duty
to do. That the decision of the Fed
eral courts upon questions OF this kind
is not authority binding upon the
State courts or the citizens OF a State
has been frequently decided.
In the case Of Congaree Construc-
ton Co., VS.. Columbia Township, re-
ported in 10 S. c., 535. At page 539
the court uses this language:
Again, it is urged that, inaSmuch
as the supreme court Of the United
States, in the case Of Folsom vs..
Ninety-Six Township. l59 U. S., Gil,
has been called upon to pass upon the
same questions as were considered and
decided by this court in Floyd VS..
Perrin, and has taken different view
from that adopted by this court as to
the constitutionality Of the statutes
there involved, (our own court in that
case having held the bonds invalid)
this court should now, with view to
securing uniformity Of judicial deciS-
ion, abandon it's previous well-consid-
cred opinion and adopt the view taken
by the supreme court OF the United
States. While this court fully recog-
nizes the superior authority and bind
ing force Of ali decisions OF that dis
tinguished tribunal in all cases in
volving the construction Of the con-
stitution and laws Of the United
States and is always ready to cheer
fully follow and acquieSce in such de-
ciSionS, yet We do not recognize the
superior authority OF that tribunal.
or the binding force Of its decisions,
involving only the construction or va
lidity Of our own State constitution
and laws. Upon such questions it is
our sworn duty to pass, untrammeled
by the dicta Of any foreign tribunal.
whether State or Federal, no matter
how high it's rank may be, and to de-
eide such questions according to our
best Judgment.
The facts are briefly these: In 1885
the Legislature passed an Act amend
ing an Act to incorporate the Green
vile and Port Royal railroad company
in certain important particulars, and
among this Incorporating certain
townships along the line OF the said
proposed railway, and authorized
these townships to subscribe to its
capital stock upon the terms and con-
ditions therein expressed. These con-
ditions were never complied with. and
the records in the office Of the county
commissioners for the various couE-
ties will so show. The said bonds
would therefore, be invalid in the
hands Of the original parties to whom
they were issued. Notwithstanding
the failure to comply with the condi-
tionS precedent required by the Act,
bonds on behalf of these several town
ships were issued in an amount vary
ing from ten to twenty thousand dol
lars to each township. \ company
was organized for the pretended pur-
pose Of constructing the said road.
This company pretended to be grad
ing the road, and thereby secured from
the county commissioners the issue
o. the said bonds. Shortly thereafter
the company failed and left the grade
in an incomplete condition, and che
people have nc prospect whatever OF
ever getting the said road. An action
was brought in the State courts for
the purpose Of testing the validity OF
these bonds and the State court de-
cided the Act unconstitutional and
the bonds invalid. (See Floyd VS.. Per-
rim, 80 S. c., page l.) Thereafter
certain parties, who claimed to be
non-residents and subsequent pur-
chasers for value aud without notice,
(the bonds being invalid in the hands
of the original holders, for the reasons
above specified brought their action
in the United States court to test the
validity Of the said bonds, and the
United States court refused TO 1ol!oW
L lt