The Anderson daily intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson, S.C.) 1914-1915, 1914-11-10

W pay SuniS Oi money lOT perlOQ
of five years and forty years for by
drant rentals. electric lights, etc, is
In violation of statute law and un-
constitutional because al attempt to
creae p debt "in the nature of a
bonded debt" without complying with
the requirements OF the constitution
and the statutes. II II is suggested
that the Charleston debt of $4,000
per year for so years Is much larg-
er than the Anderson debt and there
fore distinguishable therefrom. the
obvious answer is that the principle
was held applicable to smaller debt
than that OF Anderson in the Fountain
Inn case. The size OF the debt could
not be controlling. A debt OF $4,000
year for large city might not be
as serious In proportion to population
taxable property, ETC., as IL smaller
debt to smaller city Bv the South
ern Public Utilities company fran
chise-contract the debt attempted to
be created even now approximates
$4,000 annually. including that at
tempted to be created Nv the white
way" contract.
The whit" w'v" contract Of course
is invalid icc the SAME reasons that
the frarchise-contract invalid
IL NAV be contended that il is too
late for the citv to "raisc" these cues
tons. That by accepting benefits. etc,
the city has legally or equtably estop-
ped itself from contesting the validity
OF the instruments In quetsion.
l have carefully considered this
view. The doctrine Of estoppel is &C.
casionally applicable to what are
classed as void contracts but the an
plication OF estoppel to void contracts 8
ID extraordinary 1t is the settled geli-
eral doctrine in this State that those
who deal with city in matters C,
this kind do so at their peril. They
are presumed to know the law. They
are required to investigate and find
out whether or not g city council bas
authority to make contracts OF This
nature and must accept the ccnse-
quences IL council acts withort au-
thority. On this point our supreme
court explains this doctrine ss appli-
cable to cities in Mister vs. Spartan
burg. 6s Sa c., page SO, from which I
quote as follows:
1t is true, city may be estop-
ped tc deny the validity o. acts
done by its city council for q pub
lie purpose ~ continuing to ac-
cept the an.,S:.ls OF such action,
but this AZ Whe re the act is merely
an regular or improper exercise
Jf power conferred by law. Where
there is an entire absence of pow
er, to do what 1t has undertaken
because the contract Or ordinance
Is forbidden by the Constitution or
statute law OF the State. the coun-
eli In such action does not repre-
sent the municipality, and for this
reason the city can not be es-
topped to deny the validity &c the
contract c- c-a.:-:.sSS 0f tt:1o ouun-
Gill; whatever may be; the loss en-
called on those who have acted
on the faith of the gapposed pow
er, or the inc,dents. ssehaft .==aicsz
arcrues to. the residents Of the
city. The effort to Bind the. city
amounts to nc more than IL the
council had undertaken to 1egis-
late or make CONTRACTS for an
other municipality or fer the en-
tire State" 3,ttsAS
Not Seyerabla.
Finally, 1t may be urged that the
ranchise-contract Is seyerable That
the attempt of the city council to
create q debt "in the nature Of al
bonded debt" by contract can be and
will be separated by the courts from
the franchise granting ;tia company
the right or permit" to occupy the
ssreets. ETC., and ''do business" here.
IN. other words, that the courts will
declare the franchise portion valid
and the contract portion invalid.
This phase Of the question has also
been given my earnest consideration
Sut am unable to agree with the
severable contention. Among other
reasons, because OF the plain Ian
guage OF the instruments themselves.
1t will be recalled by Some OF you
that . strong but i::isisSSsssssf;.t ssfo-t
was made to have the two separated. 4
In fact the original request was for
q permit to do businesss for so years
without any contract whatsoever as
to furnishing water and lights for
city purposes and to the Inhabitants
This permit" proposal Was always
opposed by council and by many lead
Ing advocates OF the measure. It is
true that there were two papers, one
entitled San ordinance granting unto
Southern Public Utiiissss company
the right and privilege to use the
streets and other public places OF the
city, for the. purpose pf supplying
water; electric lights and power to.
the cisy or Anderson ana its innabi-
tants" and the other a Memorandum
OF agreement between the company
and city. The latter OF course ems
bodies the contract as to hydrant rem
tails, light, etc. Both papers are OF
the same date. were PASSED by coun-
ell at the same meeting and they In
express terms show that the two ps-
pers are TO be treated and are two