Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1902-10-29
AN IMPORTANT STATEMENT.
To The Voters Of South Carolina i:

Cooper in the County of Greenwood
snlliyan in the County of Laurens
and Huiett and Pine Grove in the
County of Saluda, hereby call to your
attention the proposed amendment
to Article VII, Section II of the
Constitution of 1895, which seeks tc
destroy the corporate existence oi
the said Townships, and respectfully
ask that you vote in favor of the
said proposed constitutional amend
ment, for the reason that it is the
only hope to relieve the taxpayers
of the said townships from tho pay
.ment of an enormous debt for bonds
issued in aid of railroad which was
never built, and for which they have
received absolutely no consideration
The said bonds were illegally issued
IN the beginning, as the citizens of
sd townships respectfully allege and
VIII endeavor to show, and the said
indebtedness has been declared null
\ and void by the Supreme Court OF
5sSouth Carolina, whose decision should
Ape accepted as final and conclusive
sby all loyal citizens of the State, the
decision ak any court to the contrary
notwithstanding. So, then, the tax
payers of these townships claim:
(1) That there is no moral con.
sideration for 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 re,
ceived absolutely no consideration
for the said enormous debt, the prin.
Sfpal alone of which amounts in the
ne eighborhood of one hundred thous-
ed dollars, and which has been
drawing interest at seven per cent
for something like sixteen years.
(23 That the said debt does not
constitute legal Indebtedness
agai nst the said townships, if we ac-
cept as final the decision of the Su.
preme 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 Courts or the
citizens of a State, has been frequent
ly decided.
In the case of Congaree Construc-
tion Company vs.. Columbia Town
ship, reported in 40 S. c., 535. AT
page $50 the Court uses this Ian.
guage:
"Again, it is urged that, inasmuch
as the Supreme Court of the United
States, in the case of Folsom vs..
Ninety-Six township, 159 U. S., Gil,
has been called upon to pass upon
tie same questions as were consid-
cred and decided by this Court in
Floyd vs.. Perrin, and has taken a
different view from that adopted by
this Court as to the constitutionality
of the statutes there involved, (our
own Court in the case having held
the bonds invalid) this Court should
now, with view to securing uni
formity of judicial decision, abandon
its previous well considered opinion
and adopt the view taken by 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 &C
quiescc in such decisions, yet we do
not recognize the superior authority
of that tribunal, or the binding force
of it's decisions involving only the
construction or validity 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 its
rank may be-, and to decide such
questions according to our best judg-
ment."
The facts are briefly these: In
1885 the Legislature passed an Act
amending an Act to- incorporate the
Greenville and Port Royal Railroad
Company in certain important par
ticulars, and among this incorporat-
ing certain townships along the line
of the said proposed railway, and
authorized these townships to sub.
scribe to it's capital stock upon the
terms and conditions therein ex.
pressed. These conditions were
never complied with, and the records
in the Office of the county commits.
sioners for the various counties will
80 show. The said bonds would
therefore, be invalid in the hands oi
the original parties to whom they were