The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-12-21
THE CONTESTED ELECTION.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SUPREME
COURT.
Arguments OF Hon. d. T. Corbin, Hon. c.
C.Bowen, Hen. w. ID. Porter, and MIR.
q. Barker.

COLUMBIA, December 10. 1S6S.-The argu.
n,ent in the Charle ,ton election case COM
menced to-day in the Supreme Court, before a
full bench, Chief Justice Moses and Associate
Justices Willard and Hoge being present.
The court room was crowded with spectators
lawyers and citizens, white and colored, all Of
whom showed the greatest interest in the CAGE
The case commenced at ten A. NJ. Hon. W
| D. Porter appeared at first alone for the Mayor
and Aldermen of the City of Charleston, and
Messrs. Corbin, Chamberlain and Bowen fol
REALTORS. A preliminary question was raised
as TO which party was entitled to the opening
and closing. The court decided in favor OF
| the relators, though the Chief Justice thought
| individually to the contrary.
Mr.. Corbin read the petition for the nadnda-
mus.
Hon. W. D. Porter, counsel for tho respon-
| dents, read their return to the writ OF nldndd-
mus, which gives an account OF their action IN
regard 10 the election, and states that they
had decided that there was no valid and legal
election, and "that their authority in the
premises is sole and exclusive, and that their
decision is final and binding upon all parties. "
Mr.. Corbin demurred to 80 much of the re-
| turn as relates to the neglect OF managers to
require tho oath to be taken by persons pre-
senting themselves for registration, and NOV
ed to strike it out. The motion was refused.
Hon. D. T. Corbin opened the argument for
the REALTORS He stated that this proceeding
was based upon the declaration of the Acting
Board of Aldermen in the City Of Charleston,
to the effect that no legal and valid election
for municipal officers had taken place on tho
10th November last, and that the remedy
sought was by a command from this court TO
the said Acting Board OF Aldermen command
ing them to declare the election; that Is, to
yph 0f SpVpr0l (Qn(ii6at19
received the highest number OF votes.
he examined the statute providing for the
municipal election, and argued that the Acting
Board of Aldermen acted judiclally IN the eX-
animation of the returns and the ballots, and
in the investigation Of the case; but that when
they assumed, instead Of declaring the cleo
ton, to set aside that election, they overstep-
ped the limits of their jurisdiction, and rendered
themselves liable to the general supervision
and control over all inferior tribunals which is
conferred by the constitution upon the Su-
preme Court. Hence the case, which ls now
before the court. Mr.. Corbin discussed at
length the meaning Of the phrase ''to declare
the election, holding that it was pcrversion
of language, and an evident nullihcatlon of
the statute IN question to hold that the will OF
the people, as expressed in the municipal elec-
ton, could be set aside and defeated by the ac-
tion of q tribunal whose interests might evi-
dently be promoted by denying the legality Of
Tue entire OIeCtlOu.
He was proceeding to show that the process
of n,anddn.Ns was the appropriate remedy,
when he was interrupted by Mr.. Porter for the
respondents, who stated that they admitted that
n,andanaus was the appropriate remedy.
Mr.. Corbin then argued that the nlandamuS
dio not seek to control their decision, but
only to require them to make descsion con-
formable to the statute which says that they
shall declare the election. q DldndamuS, he
said, will not lie to control the judicial action
or the judicial discretion OF any tribunal. But
there is distinction to be observed between
the judicial functions aud the ministerial func-
tions of judicial tribunals. The investigation
OF the case, and the examination the returns
with the ballots, we're judicial functions, and
the action of the Aldermen in these respects
could not be controled but when they had
completed their judicial functions, the minis
terial duty remained, to wit: "to declare the
election" and this is the appropriate object to
be accomplished by the randdnlas.
Hr. Bowen followed on behalf of the re-
lators.
He said it was true he was there in the name
of certain parties, tut, in reality he was there
in the name of the people Of Charleston-in
the name of a majority of the legal voters
claiming their rights as expressed by them at
the ballot box but little over month ago.
Under existing circumstances, an application
for mandamus was the only remedy le1t. When