Loach v. Scheper, 14745.

Citation188 S.C. 21,198 S.E. 409
Decision Date26 August 1938
Docket NumberNo. 14745.,14745.
PartiesDE LOACH. v. SCHEPER et al., Board of County Directors.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

198 S.E. 409
188 S.C. 21

DE LOACH.
v.
SCHEPER et al., Board of County Directors.

No. 14745.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Aug. 26, 1938.


[198 S.E. 410]

Controversy without action by W. A. De Loach against F. W. Scheper, Jr., and others, constituting the Board of County Directors of Beaufort County, S. C, wherein the petitioner sought to permanently enjoin the respondents from issuing general obligation bonds.

Petition dismissed.

Wm. N. Levin, of Beaufort, for petitioner.

W. Brantley Harvey, of Beaufort, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This matter, heard by permission in the original jurisdiction of the Court, is a controversy without action, under Section 668, Code of 1932, being submitted upon an agreed case, containing the facts upon which the controversy depends. The petitioner is a resident taxpayer of Beaufort Township in Beaufort County. He seeks to permanently enjoin the Respondents, who constitute the Board of County Directors of Beaufort County, from issuing $300,000 of general obligation bonds of Beaufort, Sheldon and St. Helena Townships, in Beaufort County. Unless restrained by this Court, Respondents intend to proceed with the issuance and sale of these bonds, the proceeds of which are to be used, along with a grant

[198 S.E. 411]

of $235,000 from the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works, to defray the cost of building two bridges in St. Helena Township, Beaufort County, across Harbor River and Johnson's Creek to Hunting Island.

Hunting Island is one of South Carolina's barrier islands which is now owned by the South Carolina State Forestry Commission. Previous to 1936 the greater portion of this island was owned by Dr. Arthur W. Elting and the Honorable James M. Cameron. The remaining portion was owned by the United States Government. In that year Dr. Elting and Mr. Cameron conveyed their interest in the island to Beaufort County upon the condition that it be developed as a park and game sanctuary. During this year the United States conveyed its interest to Beaufort County on similar conditions. Subsequently the County conveyed the entire Island to the State Forestry Commission subject to the same conditions as appear in the respective deeds of conveyance to it. That latter body now proposes to develop the Island as a park and game sanctuary in order to carry out the purposes of the grant. At the present time the Island is inaccessible save by boat and in order to properly develop it it will be necessary to build two bridges from St. Helena Island to Hunting Island. The Board of County Directors has employed an engineer who has estimated the costs of these bridges at $535,000; the grant to be obtained from the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works will approximate $235,000. To raise the $300,000 needed for the sponsor's share the Board of County Directors proposes to issue these bonds.

Apparently two methods of financing the project were provided by the General Assembly in 1936. These appear as Acts 1028 and 1029 of the Statutes at Large for 1936. The first of these Acts, approved the 21st day of May, 1936, authorized the Board of County Directors to issue and sell not exceeding $300,000 of general obligation bonds of Beaufort County. The second of these Acts authorized the Board of County Directors to issue and sell $300,000 of bonds of any Township or group of Townships in the County to raise these funds. Beaufort County is divided into Townships which have for many years been recognized as political subdivisions.

During the 1938 session of the General Assembly an effort was made to amend Section 2 of Act No. 1029. The title of the amendatory Act, Act 1016, is as follows: "An Act to Provide for the Levy of Taxes for County, School and Other Purposes, for the Year 1938-1939 and Direct the Expenditure Thereof in Beaufort County, and Amend a Joint Resolution Known as Act No. 1029 of the Acts of 1936."

It is conceded that this statute is the vehicle for appropriations for Beaufort County for the current fiscal year and is commonly referred to as a Supply Bill. It is under the provisions of Act 1029, as amended by the 1938 Statute, that the Board of County Directors has acted in adopting resolutions providing for the bond issue sought to be restrained in this action.

The petition sets forth some 7 grounds of objection to the issuance of these bonds. It attacks the constitutionality of the amendatory Statute of 1938, the Statute as amended, and the Statute in unamended form. Petitioner's counsel has presented a thorough brief contending that the Board of County Directors is without power to issue the bonds.

"Here the citizen's claim of fundamental right under government is to be weighed against the claim of lawful community enterprise and development. The grave issue ought to compel care and dignity in presentation as the only fitting aid to true and just judgment."

The Board of County Directors on the other hand feel assured of the soundness of their position and seem convinced that the project which they have undertaken is one that will inure to the benefit of the community. With these matters before us we must now proceed to undertake a disposition of the questions raised by the petition. To do this makes it necessary that we discuss the constitutionality of the amendatory Act of 1938, the constitutionality of the Act as amended, and finally the constitutionality of the original Statute of 1936. In doing this we must bear in mind and apply the principle that it is the duty of the judiciary to uphold the constitutionality of a Statute unless its invalidity is manfest beyond reasonable doubt, and unless it is clearly violative of some provision in the Constitution.

The questions to be decided by this Court are well expressed in the Petitioner's brief under the heading, "Questions Involved." We shall discuss them in the order there enumerated.

[198 S.E. 412]

The first question there stated is: (1) Does the Beaufort County Supply Bill for 1938-1939 relate to more than one subject, in violation of Article 3, Section 17?

That provision of the Constitution provides that each Act or Resolution, having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject and that shall be expressed in the Title. There is no doubt but that this...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT