The Anderson daily intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson, S.C.) 1914-1915, 1914-12-04

proposed / contract is OF the nature
OF bond debt (referring to the Char
lesion case), which can not be created
without the sanction of the majority
OF the qualified electors OF the town.
constitution, Art. 8, Sec. T." II he and
the other members OF the supreme
court were Of the opinion that that
contract created q bonded indebted
ness 1t is not likely that they would
have used that pecpiiar language, 60
wit: "It may be conceded that the
proposed contract is OF the nature of
a bonded debt" To my mind, Il was
merely equivalent to say that for the
purpose of deciding the two questions
involved IL may be conceded that II
was cerating bonded debt, but even
II such were true. and an election was
necessary, then the town council had
authority to order the election and
consequently the contention that IL
was without such authority cverruled.
In coming to that conclusion the
court further used this languauge:
Moreover. as the making OF the con-
tract is the creation of q bonded
debt" ETC.. but that, to my mind,
merely meant, namely, that 1t may be
conceded for the purpose Of thia de-
cision that the contract was a bonded
.ebt, and still the constitutional re-
4uirements as to creating q bonded
debt had been complied with.
But lets concede for the sake of ar
gument (as the supreme court did
aboye) that our contract was invalid
at the time 1t was made, and then the
question naturally arises whether the
city and the citizens are now estopped
In fairness end Justice from raising
that question. Mr.. Sullivan came to
the conclusion that they were not, and
quoted the case OF Mister VS.. Spar
tanburg, 68 S. c., 3S, in s,.nport of his
view. That was case brou<ht by
citizen to require the city of Spartan
burg to collect taxes from cotton
null that had been exempted from
ta zation for a period of ten years by
the city council. think the follow
ing atics -tc:. s-S::; chat :i;st SAINT decision
more in point than the portion quoted
by Mr.. Sullivan, to- wit: "That most
serious question for the court Is. did
the inaction and delay amount to sacil
laches as will make the granting of
the petition unjust and inequitable? II
SO, whatever may have been the rights
or the petitioners, they should not
now be inforced. In solving this aues-
tlon the important Inquiries Gfe:' q J
Was the delay unreasonable; and (2)
Would its natural result be injury to
the party against whom the relief is
sought?" That involves moral uues-
tions that every man can answer for
himself. Every citizen has had the
right to go directly to the supreme
court to have the validity of the con-
tract tested from the very day that it
was signed. And if that court should
hold that the delay was not unreas-
enable, could 1t hold that the natural
result OF setting the contract aside
would not cause ,injnry to the COM
pany? hear that the company has
spent something like $4,000 in put
ting In new mains. Section 9 OF the
contract provides that "the company
shall Immediately upon acceptance az
ttis ordinance. or as soon thereafter
as II conveniently can, and within II
months from acceptance replace ell
water mains of four inches. or less, In
diameter. that are now used to sup
ply water to fire. hydrants with mains
not less than six inches In diameter"
etc. Hal the company as.ayed pdf-
ting In those six inch mains up to
this date 1t could well have been
charged with Indifference to its con-
tractual obligations and that It would
likely fail to perform that part of Its
contract within the time 81 specified.
Would the injury done the company
be entirely compensated for by the