The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1902-10-29
The Lexington Dispatch.
Wednesday, October 29, 1902.
An Important Statement.

IC 6n9 fOteEs OF 0Outn SaIoiiua'
The townships of Dunklin and Oak
Lawn in the county of Greenville,
Cokesbury, Ninety.Six and Cooper in
the county of Greenwood; Sullivan
in the county of Laurens, and Huiett
and Pine Grove in the county Saluds,
hereby call to your attention the pro
posed amendment to to Article VII,
Section IL of the Constitution OF
1896, which seeks to destroy the cor
porate existence of the said townships,
and respectfully ask that you vote in
favor of the said proposed constitu-
tional amendment, for the ereason that
il is the only hope to relieve the tax
payers of the sid townships from the
payment of an enormous debt for
bonds issued in aid of a railroad
which was never built and for which
they have received absolutely no con-
sideration. The said bonds were H.
legally issued in the beginning as the
citizensof said townships respectfully
ailege and will endeavor to show. and
the said indebtedness has been de-
clared null and void by the Supreme
Court of South Carolina, whose de-
cision should be accepted as final and
conclusive by all loyal citizens of the
State, the decision of any other court
to the contrary Notwithstanding. So
then, The taxpayers Of these town.
ships claim:
(1) That there is no moral consid-
Grafton for the said Indebtedness, in
as much as the conditions precribed
by the Act upon compliance of which
alone the bonds should be issued,
were never complied with and the
people of these townships have re-
csived absolutely no consideration for
the said enormous debt, the pripci
pal alone of which amounts in the
neighborhood Of one hundred thous-
and dollars and which has been draw
ing interest at the rate of seven per
cent. for something like sixteen years.
{2) That the said debt does not
constituteal legalind Indebtedness against
The said townships If we accept as
final the decision of the Supreme
Court of South Carolina, which it is
our duty TO do. That the decision of
the Federal courts upon questions
Of this kind is not authority binding
apon the State courts or the citizens
Of State has been frequently de-
sided.
In the case Of Congaree Constuc-
lion company vs.. Columbia township,
reported in 49; s. c., $50. AT page
$50 the court uses this language:
s.Again, it is urged that, inssmuch
ss the supreme court Of the United
States in the case Of Folsom vs.
Ninety.Six township, 15s q. s., 6l1;
has been called upon to pass upon
the same questions as were consid
cred 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 a view to securing uniform
ity of judicial decision, abandon it's
previous well considered opinion and
adopt the view taken by the supreme
court of the United States. While
this court fully recognizes the supe-
rior; authority and bidipg force of ell
decisions of that distinguished tri-
bunal in all cases involving the con-
struction of the constitution and
laws of the United States and is al
ways ready to cheerfully follow and
acsuiesce in such decisions, yet we
do not recognize the superior author
ity of that tribunal, or the binding
force of it's decisions, involving only
the construction or validity of own
State constitution and laws. Upon
such questions it is our sworn duty to