The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-11-28
CONTESTED ELECTION.
Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen
TENTH DAY-FR1DAY, NOVEMBER 81, 1865

suant to adjournment.
Present-The Mayor; Aldermen Geddines
Potter, Cunningham, Moore, Derecf, Wall
Olney, Honour, Wbilden, voigt, Howard, Nc
Klnlay and Marshall-thirteen members.
The journal of the previous days session
was read and approved.
The Mayor announced the board ready to
hear the argument.
Mr.. Barker, for protestants, said he omitted
to mention, in the course of his argument on
Wednesday. the authorities upon which 1t was
based, and desired to do so now
He stated first that the general law was, by
protestants, regarded as unre Gealed, except as
modified by the act Of 1868; and he then cited the
act OF 1881, STAT, 442, 2 section, ct seq; 9TH
section OF the same act, requiring residents to
vote in the Hard in which they reside; a. A.
1851, u stat. 1873, enaeting the duty OF the
managers to meet as board; Bellingcr's Com
pilation, 335, which cites, Bay, 4S7; Schnierle
case, S Rich. 300 and the case OF Iilman
Watson.
He cited, also, tn resolutions OF the Assem-
bly on the subject OF election, and The charter
of .he CITY AMI amendments thereto, particu-
larlv A. A. 1886, which provides that no amend
ments shall be made unless the substance be
published IN gazette tor thirty days previous.
Gushing, section ISL, p. 67, ct sequitur-as 10
how tar the neglect or misconceptlon OF duty
on the part OF managers will render the eiec-
tion void.
gumeut on behalf OF the claimants. be was
yery happy to see the prospect OF this long IN
vesilcation being brought to close, and that
the community, who have been impatient spec
tators. would be relieved of their anxiety and
suspense. Council was sitting here, said he,
to determine what are the law and the facts,
and upon them to come to conclusion. inns,
ne said, was O general protest, and the law
knows nothing Of general pro testsagalnst e,ec-
tiops, although the books are full of contests.
This proceeding, therefore, he regarded as II.
regular. In order to bring up the case 1t
should have been declared that some persons
have been elected as Mayor and Aldermen Of
the City Of Charleston. This ls protest
against nobody's claim. 1t is portion OF o
community asking you to declare that NOBODY
has been elected. And for this we have no PFC
cedent. The first objection We make is that
we have no case here-no parties. My con.
ception of q contest involves the existence OF
two parties, and I feel that if the board
takes the most simple view OF the mat
ter they would arrive at the conclusion
that there really had been no issue presented
in this case.
The counsel asked that the board consider
this proposition That whatever irregulari-
ties there might have been. they had no power
to declare that there had been no valid cleo
ton. Their power ouly enables them to de-
clare which Of the two candidates had received
The largest number OF votes. (Cited a. A.,
1868, which he said gave them power to de
clare the electlon.j
The counsel on the other side, said he,
ask now to declare nobody elected. when the
law distinctly says you can only declare the
election" To declare, means Simply, when
Won have investigated the case, to declare who
has been elected. We are willing, however, to
waive the objection, and for argument sake to
say that you have the power to set aside and
avoid the election, Granting this, VIC contend
that nothing has been presented which VIII
warrant you in avoiding this election.
Mr.. Chamberlain contended that the ques-
tious of bribery, corruption and intimidation
are outside Of the issue, because it was dis
tinctly understood by the board that they
would hear no evidence at this stage OF the
proceedings but such as referred to the con-
duct OF the Board of Managers: ANY other
evidence is not now TO be considered. Ihe
hoard simply know that thorc are certain re-
turns to be decided on, and he asked them to
confine their thoughts to that which had been
agreed on. The managers, he SAID. were ta-
ken up as the general election left them ano
made the managers Of the city elections.
Every manager has stated here, under oath,
that he considered himself under oath during
the whole period, and, therefore, no suost an
tial irregularities arse out OF the way IN winch
they were sworn.
The counsel then argued that il was not the
intention OF the law that the managers should
act as a single board, but that they should do
as they dil-make returns as separate and ln'
dependent wards and cited, in support OF 1t,
section 2, A. A. 1868, in relation To- the ap-
pointment Of commissioners OF elections. He
contended that, il 1t had been understood that
there should have been but one general board,
the language of the law would have mo,e
plainly indicated it. They are appointed by
boards OF thrcc for each precinct. lu the con-
duct of the registration and election, no
reference was had to any other board; the
managers Of one ward could not know OF the
validity OF invalidity Of tho proceedings IN
another: nor could they celtify as to tie re-
turns of wards other than thei.s. Each ward
of three was, therefore, intended by the act to
decide in contested cases in their precincts.
We have, then, fourteen returns, and what
ever might have been the intention of the law
on that point, even if it had said that one re-
turn should have been made to the Mayor, yet
if these fourteen returns are correct, the in
formality does not invalidate the election. You
must ascertain, not whether these returns are
separate, or all in one, but whether they arc
the real correct returns OF the election.
The position claimants desired to take was
this: That the simple ques :on before the
board is, has there been good and substantial
election? Are the returns substantially correct!
And if they examine the question they would
find that courts of justice confne themselves
not 80 much to the letter as to the spirit OF the
law. He was willing, therefore, to rest the
whole case upon the general question, whether
the evidence does not show that there has been
good and substantial election on the tenth
day of November.
He contended that Ill the managers sworee
that the returns we're correct, and II they had
not been previously sworn, this swearing
would cure the defects, because tho evidence
OF the leading witnesses is better than all the
legal formalities.
He then advanced to the most important
informality in the issue, viz: the fact that
it had been proved that very many OF the
voters who were registered we're not sworn
previous to registration. This. he contendeJ,
was not formality which, il not complied
with, would vitiate the election. They must
look after the substance, said he, not the sha-
dow. The managers testified that in every
case where there was doubt the person who
offered to register Was sworp. The object OF
registration was professedly to secure free
EXPRESSION OF opinion, and admitting that the
provisions of the statute were not contor1ned
TO. it was for the contestants to prove that q
single man had registered Who was not entl-
tied to do so. They must prove substantial
injustice; they have not done 30. Ihey must
prove that because the oath was not exacted
somebody registered who would not have done
so had it been exacted. 1t was not important
therefore, on the general principle he had lald
down, that the oath should have been admin
istered to every applicant.
But, said he, we have o more complete oo-
lection. We contend that no one had rlght