The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1905-12-27
DECISION OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE WOODS
Declares That Water Works Bonds
Are Valid.

Commissioners Are Authorized to Sell
the Bonds Turned Over to Them by
the City OF Sumter.and Purchase the
Water Works System.
The friendly suit brought by May
or Geo. w. Dick and the city aldermen
against the commissioners Of public
works Of the city Of Sumter was to
establish the validity or invalidlty OF
the $4,000 worth Of bonds voted to
be issued for the purchase Of the plant
owned and operated by the Sumter
Water Company.
The decision Of the State Supreme
Court was in favor Of the validity OF
the bonds, which was established by
the following opinion Of Associate
Justice Woods in which the rest Of the
court concurred:
i In this proceeding, the city council
Of the city of Sumter asks for writ
Of mandamus to compel the commits
sioners of public works to Sell certai-i
municipal bonds, aggregating in
amount one hundred and sixtecn
thousand <sI1s,o0o.0o) dollars. turn
ed over to them by the.7aeis couocii
-ans -v ne proceeds Il tae pur-
chase, undee option he'd py tee city,
os the water works now owned by an :
operated by the Sumter Water Com
pany.
The answer admits all the facts set
out in the petition, but alleges that
.sthe bonds are invalid, unstable and
void, because, (a) the bonds were is
sued for the purchase Of water works
already constructed, and under the
statutes city in South Carolina has
no power to purchase waterworks al
ready constructed.
(b.) Because the question voted
upon in the election was as follows:
"shall the city of Sumter purchase
the property and rights Of the Sumter
Water Power Company and issue
bonds in payment thereof in such
amount as may be necessary"
"Yes.''
The negative ballots, it is alleged,
were in precisely words, ''No" being
substituted for eyes" Whereas it is
respectfully submitted that the defn.
ite amount of bonds to be issued
should also have been submitted to
the voters voting in said election"
The first objection to the validity. OF
the election raises serious question
Of constitutional and satuatory con-
struction.
1t is provided by Section 5, Article
viii of the constitution:
Section 5. Cities and towns may
!! acquire by construction or purchase
and may operate, water works systems
| and plants for furnishing lights, and
may furnish water and lights to in
y;duals. firm and private corporations
for reasonable conspensation: Pro
yiced. that no such construction o.
purchase shall i,e made except upo:
/. majority vote of the electors in saic
! cites or towns who are qualified te
vote on the bonded Indebtedness o.
said cities or towns"
+, This article Of the constitution ex'
pressly conferring the power to issue
| bonds for the purchase of 'watel
works systems upon a majority vote
of the electors" necessarily implies the
| power of the municipality to hold al
election to ascertain the will Of th'
majority, though possibly this righ
might have been defeated by the fail
ure Of the General Assembly to pro
vide election machinery.
Section I, Article VII, contains t}ni
provision:
Section 7. ''No city or town in thi
State shall hereafter incur any bond
ed debt which, including existin;
bonded Indebtedness, shall exceed
per cent. of the assessed value of th
taxable property therein, and no sucl
debt shall be created without submit
ting the question as to the creatio
thereof to the qualified electors 0
s1ch CITY Or town as nrouidnd in thi