The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1905-12-01
TWICE A WEEK. 81 so A YEAR

~ ~ ~. LHNy- Lay ii<4o. 1AS NOAh
trary view was taken in a number of
the earlier cases cited in Dillon on
Municipal Corporations, Sec 118, and
by some of the Justices of the ST.
preme Court of the United States in
Nashville VS.. Ray, supra. There is
now. however, little of any judicial
dissent from the view that municipal
officers are not the general fiscal
agents of the corporation with the inn
piled power to borrow money for
corporate purposes. This conviction
fof the courts has been greatly
strengthened by the disasters which
have befallen so many communities
growing out of the negligent and
fraudulent misappropriation Of money
borrowed by counties, cities and
towns In state ex rel. Atkins VS..
Mayesville, IL S. c. 76, the court says:
"The only point discussed at bar is
the power of the town of Mayesville
to levy taxes. 1t appears that no ex-
press authority is granted for that
purpose in its charter. Such power
can only be implied on the ground
of necessary implication. "
To raise such an implication It
would be necessary to hold that mu-
nicipal powers cannot be effectively
granted without the taxing power-a
proposition that we cannot affirm; no
such power of taxation can therefore
be implied" The power to levy
taxes is far more usual and necessary
to corporate existence than the power
to borrow money on the faith of taxes,
and. if the former is not implied from
the fact of incorporation for strong
er reason the latter is not.
There is, however, an obvious dif-
ference between borrowing money,
even for the purpose OF applying 1t to
the ordinary current expenses OF the
town. and contracting debts to those
who are employed to do those things
requisite to the conduct of the towns
affairs. such as street laborers, po-
licemen, ETC.. or even for the erection
of buildings to be used for municipal
purposes. "In the one case the ap-
plication of the credit is secured to
the advancement of the authorized OBJ
ject, while money borrowed is liable
to be lost, to be squandered, Or to be
diverted to illegitimate purposes.
Daniel on Neg. Inst, Sec. 1880. I'm
der the general rule Of law, the coun-
ell of the town Of Prosperity could
have made debt for q town hall and
guard-house to one who contracted to
build it. Neely VS.. Yorkville, * 4
But even the power to contract
debts for municipal purposes should
be restricted to such debts as the
council could reasonably expect and IN
good faith did expect to pay from che
ordinary revenue of the town for the
current municipal fiscal year. With
ont such restriction it is manifest
there would be no safeguard against
involving the town in overwhelming
debt for municipal buildings and en-
terprises out of all proportion to its
present or reasonably to be expected
population and wealth. While this
lnight not imply the same moral tur-
Ditude, it is as disastrous to the tax
payer as intentional transportation
of borrowed money, especially when
anv unusual enterprise is contempla-
ted. all who deal with the municipal
author are chargeable with the
knowledge that the council would
have no right to involve the town IN
debt for it's prosecution, unless, after
careful estimate. they with good
reason believe there would be sur-
plus revenue for the current year,
over all necessary current expenses to
paw the debt 70 be contracted tor such
building or other enterprise. If, how
ever. such an estimate is made leading
TO the reasonable conclusion that the
Anticipated revenue will be sufficient
to meet the debt contemplated for the
municipal building or other special en-