The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1902-10-29
AN Important Statement.
TO THE VOTERS OF SoUTH CAROLINA:
The townships of Dunklin and Oak

Cokesbury, Ninety Six and Cooper. in
tne ct unity or GREENWOOD; Sullivan in
county OF Laurens, and Huiett and
hereby call TO your attention the pro.
posed amendment to Article VII Sec
ton IL of constitution of .895, which
seeks to destroy the cooperative exist
ence of the said townships, and re-
spectfully H,k that you vote in favor
OF the SAID proposed constitutional
the only hope to relieve the taxpayers
OF the said townships from the pay
ment OF an enormous debt for bonds
Issued in aid OF q railroad which was
never built, and for which they have
received absolutely no consideration.
The said bonds were illegally issued
saii townships respectfully allege
and will endeayOr 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 decis-
Notwithstanding. So then the tax
payers of these townships claim:
~ That there is no moral conSidera-
tlOn 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 absolute
~ no consideration for the said enor-
nous debt, the principal alone of
which amounts In the neighborhood of
one hundred thousand dollars, and
which has been drawing insterest at
seven per cent. for something like six
teen years.
(2) That the said debt docs not con-
a &vrEn I'D
the said townships If we accept ae 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 upon the State
s0urts Or the citizens of State has
been frequently decided.
In the case Of Congaree Construction
company vs. Columbia township. re-
court uses this language:
"Again, it is urged that, inasmuch
as the supreme court OF the United
States, in the case Of Folsom va. Nine
ty-Six township, 159 q. s., Gil, has
been called upon to paes Upon the same
questions ae were considered and de-
cided by this court in Floyd vs. Perrin,
and has taken different view from
that adopted by this court as to the
constitutionality of the statues there
involved, (Our own court in that case
having held the bonds invalid) this
court should now, with view to se-
curing uniformity of judicial decision,
abandon Its previous we'll considered
opinion and adopt the view taken by
tn the supreme court Of the United States.
While this court fully recognizes the
superior authority and binding force
Of all decisions Of that distinguished
tribunal in all cases involving the con- |
structiOn of the constitution and laws !
OF the United States, and is always |
ready to cheerfully follow and acq1i-
esce in such decisions, yet we do NOT re.
tribunal, or the binding force Of its de- |
cisions, involving only the construction |
or,validity Of Our.Own State c0aBtitu-,
tion and laws. Upon such questions
1t 1s our sworn duty to pass, untram- !
meled by the dicta OF any foreign tri-
bunei, whether Stat, or Federal, no
matter how high its rark may be, and
TO decide zach qressi.cs 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 town.
ships along the line OF the said pro-
pOoCO A6AkW6ys anu routuOEkE0u GuGE6
townships to subscribe to it's capital
stock upon the terms and conditions
therein expressed. These. conditions
were never complied with, and the re-
cords in the office Of the county COM
missiOners for the varions counties
will 30 show. The said bonds would.
therefore, be invalid in tho hands Of
the original parties to whom they were
issued. Notwithstanding the failure
to comply with the conditions prece-
dent required by the Act, bonds on be-
half OF these several townships were
1ssued In an amount varying from ten
to twenty thousand dollars to each
township: s A company was organized
ing the said road. This company pre-
tended to bB grading the road, and
thereby secured from the county COM
nissioners the Issue Of the said bonds.
Shortly thereafter the company failed
and left the grade in an incomplete
como and f the people h have 70 pros
An action was brought in the State
courts for the purpose of testing the
validity of these bonds. and the State
court decided the Act unconstitutional
and the bonds invalid. (See Floyd va.
sss.ai.. sin. 50 9. page j. Thereafter
residents and subsequent purchasers
for value and without notice, (the
bonds being invalid in the hands Of
the original holders, for the reasons !
above apeeified] bought their action
in the United States court to test the
validity of the said bonds, and the
United States court refueed to follow
the decision of the State court in Floyd
vs. Perrin and decided In favor of the
said bond holders. That ie to say,
that the bonds were good in the hands
OF the non residents who might have
purchased the same for value and
without notice OF those facts above re,
cited, and which would go to impeach
the validity of the seid bonds (1his
tho IL face Of the fact that the records
In the Office os the County commission
ers for the various counties, which re-
cords arefpublic records and notice to