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


the franchise discussion. and to those
who wish to have both sides of the
legal controversy we would suggest
careful perusal of this calm end log
ical discussion. 1t will be recalled that
Messrs. Hood and Sullivan were both
city attorneys under the old council,
and that both were consulted I'm re-
ference to the franchise matter. Mr..
Sullivan was opposed to the granting
OF the franchise, and fought very hard
to defeat 1t. Mr. Hood. on the Other
hand, advised favorably. Mr.. Sulii.
van says that the ms tier Of the legal
| ity OF the franchise was not brought
up while the matter was under dis
| cussion; Mr.. Hood states that the city
| council had the legal right to make
| the contract and that he thought so
| then and does now.
Mr.. Hood claims that he should
know what q municipal bond is. as
every bond outstanding against the
| city attorney, except one small issue
of $4,000. and these were issued while
he was mayor. Mr.. Sullivan said he
was only q country practitioner with
about ten years practice in the gener-
al courts, and that he felt his inability
to cope with the learned and astut
Mr. Taylor. 1t would, therefore, ap-
pear that the opinion OF Mr.. He cd
would have some weight in a discus
sion Of the legality of franchise mat
legal one.
| We note that Mr.. Hood also asks
an "impertinent question" when he
sayr: what would the people be ask
ed to vote on when it comes to making
O contract for water and ligntsl'' lie
proceeds to answer his own question.
which is wherein The Intelligencer
was ut fault. But we were seeking
information. and really wished to
know. Mr.. Hood says that 1t would
only question Of municipal own
ershir and control Of the water and
lighting systems, or whether or not
the city should make the best contract
possible with some responsible con-
cern to furnish water and lights to
the city and its inhabitants on the
most satisfactory basis that could be
negotiated"
Then follows discussion OF the legal
phase OF the subject, Ill which Mr..
Hood shows that the Charleston and
Fountain Inn cases cited by Mr.. sulli-
van are not parallel cases at all. Then
he comes 10 the point In the entire
discuesion that most directly concerns
the people Of Anderson who are par
ties to this contract. after ell. That is
the moral point Of view. and the OBJ
ligatioEs resting upon the people be-
cause Of their quiet acceptance OF the
contract and its provisions. Mr.. Hood
contends that every citizen had the
right to 60 to the Supreme Court and
test the validity OF the contract. Mr..
Sullivan had this right. &c citizen,
and 30 did every member OF the City
Council who opposed the granting OF
the franchise. Why was 1t not done be-
fore the Southern Public Utilities
Company had spent many thousands
OF dollars, and practically completed
all the contract called upon 1t to do?
Mr. Hood well says: "I do not believe
the Supreme Court would set aside
the contract under the circumstances
even II It should come to tine conclu-
sion that the contract was invalid
when passed. and would then have 30
4 declared had the question been
promptly raised"
Mr. Hood pays Q deserved tribute
/ to the members OF Council for the
hard work they spent in working on
l<he adoption OF the contract. He says
that It appeared to him that every,
member OF Council desired contract
that would be fair to the City and the
company. and that the negotiations
were conducted without the least ae-,
ception ON the part Of either party to
the contract. He thinks the city made
an excellent contract, and that even
the three members who opposed 1t did
so on other grounds than that OF un-
desirability Of the terms OF the con-
tract.
Mr.. Hood says he shall endeavor by
every proper and honorable means
strive to uphold the validity OF this
contract. made by our clients with
our assistance, az their trusted attor-
neys," and that . more fair and bene-
acial contract could not be made
should the present City Council de-