The sea coast echo. [volume] (Bay Saint Louis, Miss.) 1892-current, 1917-02-24

4
suing the bonds or erecting the seawall.
| Chapter Al OF the laws Of 1914 applies
10 all municipalities and provides that
where bonds are issued in excess OF sew
en- per cent Of the assessed valuation OF
the property Of the municipality the
question mist be submitted 70 and rat
ified BY the qualified electors voting At
said election before such issuance shall
be made. Chapter 2S7 OF the Laws OF
1915 is mere enabling act in the nature
ef charter amendments comforting ad-
ditional power on the municipality; and
not having the machinery for the is
suance of said bonds, must be construed
in connection with the genera law up
on the subject, except ~ modified by
the latter act, (and the later Act does
not modify this req uirement OF bond
issue but doe. modify the 10 per csn9
Limitation imposed by that acs as total
amount which may beissucd, the law OF
1914 controls this bond issue. In other
words, the city il not limited TO bond
issue of 10 per cent OF its assessed valu-
alton but may issue such bonds to the
extent OF $500, 900. But this does not
change the Requirements thas the quss-
ton must be submitted so = voter Of the
qualified electors for their approval. 1t
being admitted in the agreed statements
OF facts that no such election was or
dered or contemplated in the issuance of
the bonds in question and that no cleo
ton was intended to be held on the
question, it follows that the board was
acting without authority and that the
Injunction would have been granted.
The case will therefore be reversed with
direction to grantthe injunction against
the issuance Of the bonds until the same
shall have bsen submitted TO the quail
fed electors and approved by a maiofi-
ty Of those voting in said election vos-
ing in said election voting therefor. In
asmuch as the case muss be reversed
and further proceedings had before the
bonds can be iesucd, and az it may be
that litigation and delay will be saved
by so doing, we viii dispose of other
questions in the record,
There is no merit in the contention
that the bond commission is unlawful
and their acts void. They are at least
de facto officers whose acts within law
ful authority are valid under Sec. 1913,
Code OF 1906, and only the State can
complain as to the questions of terms
and tenure, etc.
There is no metit in the contention
that the Board of Mayer Aldermen
must readopt charter amendment and
enter it on their minutes after It's publi-
cation and approval by the Governor
and Attorney General. The first adop-
ton by the Board of Mayor and Alder
men With it's first publication and ap-
prevail by the electors gave it life and It's
recordation on the ordinance book ofthe
city, after its approval by the Governor
was all that was necessary.
There is no merit in the contention
that the power OF assessment could not
he conferred on the bond commission
ers by charter amendment. There is no
constitutional assessor for municipali-
ties.
There is no merit in the contention
that a seawall is not in its nature pub
lie improvement for which city can
levy a general ad valorem tax on the
whole property of the city. The city
cannot arbitrarily assess special benefits
against property owners for improve
ments, but such assessments must be
reasonable. having reference to the be-
neht conferred; and before this assess
ment Of benefit is made, notice must be
given the property owned, with right
to submit evidence and make objection
thereto. Unless the city is primarily
liable for the whole amount, with right
to reimburse itself by the special asses
sment, the notice, hearing, ETC., should
be made before the bond issue is made.
Board of Mayor, etc., of Waveland va.
MoIeau, SO So. 2t4.
The city has the power to condemn
property for public use under its char
ter. and may exercise the power to erect
a seawall and acquire right Of way, etc.,
and there is, therefore, no merit in the
objection as to this matter, nor will the
seawall, if erected, become private pro-
perty. 1t follows from what we have
said that if the charter amendment
made exhibit "B" to the bill presents
valid and workable scheme for the is
suance of said bonds, if authorized by
a vote OF the qualified electors of the
city. But exhibit &c" (being another
amendment to the charter, is rot free
from objection and should be redrafted
or abandoned in the issuance of bonds.
It arbitrarily imposes one-half the ex-
pense of building the seawall on the
property owners land abutting the i'm
provement, regardless OF the cost of
construction and the actual benefit to be
conferred. Under it the city cannot be
made liable for more than one-half of
the cost even though the judiciary
should decide that one-half of the cost
of the improvement was an unreasona-
BILE burden on the abutting owners and
confscatory of his property; in which
contingency there would be no method
by which to raise money to pay all the