Lawrence democrat. (Lawrenceburg, Tenn.) 1884-1925, 1913-04-02

ward was created two Years ago.
So, the ward Was entitled then, If
il is entitled nov, to the two cOun.
cilmen. The law T'quires the
board TO elect TO FIJI vacancies be-
tween elections Messrs Garrett,
Conner. Stockard, Nee anahan aud
Schade Of the new board were
members of The old board Why
il il that these men, knowing az
the Union claims, that the law
provided for two more councilmen,
did not even suggest their election
for these two long years. Why
was it, that the Union itself wait.
ed until the exegencies Of election, |
made it good policy, and until its
publishers seat on the board WIS
involved, to demand that the fifth |
ward be given its lawful represen.
tation? We're you asleep on this
question all these two years, Brer
Johnny
But TO briefly revert to the more
serious legal phase Of this ques-
ton. The whole issue il "Did
the city have power TO elect ten
councilmenp A corporation is a
creature Of the state and has no
powers except those conferred in
its charter either expressly or by
necessary implication. That the
power to elect two exSra members
was not expressly conferred on the
city either in the original charter
or any subsequent amendments
thereto is not questioned Only
then the question of implied
powers need be considered. What
powers may therefore be conferred
by implication The answer to
this question may lie found in the
language of the great chief. justice
Marshall, who, said, in the Dart.
mouth College case: being the
mere creature of law, it possesses
only those properties which the
, charter of its creation confeTs upon
it, either expressly or as inciden-
tai to its very existence, In the
case of Spaulding VS. City of Lo.
we'll this rule was even more
, strongly expressed by the highest
court which said: "They (munici-
palities) can exercise no powers
but those which are conferred up
on them by the act by which they
are constituted, or such as are
necessary to the exercise of their
corporate powers, the performance
n of their corporate duties, and the
a accomplishment of the purposes Of
d their association" The same doc.
G trine is set out in Slegar VS. Muel.
= Ter, Chicago VS. Hasley, Orange Ry
g VS. Alexandria, Zottmann vs. San
r, Francisco, Presbyterian Church Vi
Is Fort Wayne, and hundreds O.
e other reported cases.
n Is there any sane man SO simple
d or wildly fanciful as to say tina
IS two extra councilmen are ''inci
e dental to the very existence of thu
g City of Lawrenceburg;' that tel
D. members instead of eight ar,
" necessary to the exercise of it
re corporate powers, the Performance
is of it's corporate duties, and the &C
g. complishment or the purposes o
u. it's association Is it not tru
Or that the City of Lawrenceburg Cal
h exist exercise its power, perform
Id it's duties and purposes, just a
IS, we'll with eight as with ten coun
tn cilmen7 Then we had neither ex
IL press nor implied power to cleo
re the two extra members. In tn
re light of these court decisions tn
ne claim that the election of thes
&C. men are legalized by necessary in
It, pication renders him who make
Sc it ridiculous.
- But you may ask what differenC
81 does it make anyway? 1t makes
GA great deal of difference. Ever
M act of the board in which thel
M pseudo-members sit, is taintt
W with illegality. Every Ordinan'
I passed, every vote taken, eve
W dollar received or spent, gives Il
W basis for suit of the dissatisfC
W to annul it's action. 1t is a lol
W step towards, and invites litigstio
~ confusion and expense, with /
W resultant benefits,
M II the advice of this paper