The Anderson daily intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson, S.C.) 1914-1915, 1915-01-13
SD
TO NOW

rather than to postpone the matter
ter future controversy and probably
fzore serious complications. / resrect
the view OF any member Of council
who has a different view, but feel
sure it win not only be better for the
people and the city but also for the
company IL the matter is decided and
not left "up In the air." so to speak,
TO be made en- issue in politics and a
cause for controversy probably for
years.
I understand the view of many peo-
pie that because times are hard, busi-
ness conditions uncertain and many
suffering and out of employment 1t is
a bad to press anything that may
lnteFfe, With the cooperation of all
citizens. l admit this has worried
me NO little. but at the same time L
can't see why good citizens should
not cooperate in other things even
though differing about the franchise,
and to delay matters is only laying
greater trouble for tie future.
/ also understand the views OF those
who think the legality of the franchise
doesn't matter because they think the
terms are all right and former coun-
ell agreed to them, although the peo-
pie did not vote on 1t. They are sim
cere. no doubt, hut when l have every
reason to know that the people have
a right to decide this thing for them
selves think 1t my duty TO let them
do 1t whether they dec.fe wisely or
unwisely. Some say we will repud-
late the action OF part of the city
government, former city council, IL
we do not recognize these contracts
On the other hand, If we do recognize
these contracts the law says can only
be made by the voters. do we not re-
pudiate the rights OF a far more i'm
portant part of city government than
a city counci, and that is the rights
Of the qualified voters OF the city who
are recognized by law as part of
the city government with power and
authority superior to q council
Another thing that gives me con-
Germ Is the matter of a precedent In
such things. Some say pot to recog-
nize the action Of q former council is
to set precedent that one city coun-
Gil will repudiate the action Of an
other council IL 1t can and SO the
city's credit will be hurt with people
outside. On the other hand, by up
holding the action of former coun-
ell simply to avoid such precedent,
don't we set worse precedent that
will in the long run hurt the city
more than if we decline to accept q
former councils action as final, when
1t was clearly within the rights Of
the voters to take the action and not
council.
Isn't 1t more important to the peo-
Pile to know that city council will
respect their rights than IL is to con-
tfnce outsiders that one council will
back up another? think 1t is, and
particularly because outsiders I nine
times out Of ten won't make any con-
tracts with q council where they
have any doubt about q councils pow
er to make 1t, Those who deal with
cities in important paatters knuw that
the law requires tne1I 30 fiId ou. tfie
limits Of councils power and guide
themselves accordingly. They have
attorneys who pass on such matters
for, them and my experience is they
don't take chances or depend upon
any so-called moral obligation IN
matters of large Importance.
So, far these reasons and others ]
for one. am in favor of having the
matter finally settled srow without
heat and simply as a matter Of busi-
ness and civic policy. In order that
all parties will know where they
stand stand II lew ard Z every ether way
think 1t would be well to instruct
our attorneys to take whatever action
IS necessary 90 bring the matter to an
issue under the. situation now or sug-
gest way to do 1t and urgently
recommend this to you tonight.
WOMAN SUFFRAGE AMENDMENT