The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-11-30

therefore, so much the more is the election
void. The Board, however, was to decide
whether the election was conducted IN conform
ity to the act, and they must presume the act
to be constitutional until the contrary ~ proven.
This was the answer they worlld make IN
courthouse, but they preferred to meet the ar
pument fully. MIR. Miles then, after comment
ing upon the assertion ot claimants counsel
that the act was legislative blunder, asserted
the proposition, that according to the law as
dictated by them, if one paragraph OF the act
was illegal, and therefore void, the entire act
was void; therefore, any election held under it
was void.
Fourth The conduct Of the election was not
in accordance with the law. First. At some OF
the precincts it is abundantly proved that no
poll lists were kept, and not only the unre-.
pealed law, but the Generll Election law OF
1868 requires it, It is fatal. (See Bellinger,
1861 Second. Managers allowed, in many
instances, unauthorized persons to assist ID
conducting the election, as is also abundantlS
proved. Third. The election for Ward No.
Was held in Ward No. 6, out OF the limits Of the
ward The act OF 1868 expressly provides that
each ward in the city shall constitute at least
ono polling precinct. 1t makes no difference
whether tho precinct was only across the
street, or q hundred miles away; the general
principle is the same, and the law has been
equally violated in both cases. Besides, by
doing this they male every voter swear to an
untruth, because the oath makes him swear
that he resides in "this ward"-yz: the ward
in which he is about to vote. fourtn. Ihe
conduct of the election was not in accordance
With Lhe law, by reason OF s1e conduct Of other
persons than the managers 1t has been
proved that persons illegally appointed by
Sheriff Mackey interfered with the managers
in at least one instance and this lnvaIldates
the election. In passing, counsel referred to.
and commented on, the card OF Sherit
Mackey, which appeared in the papers some
days ago.: ~ :.
accordance with the Law, because: 1: 1t was not
done at one public place as the law directs,
but ut fourteen different places. 2. 1t was not
done by tho managers under oath. 8. 1t was
not done by majority of the managers as
board, as the law provides. (Soe Bristow's
case, Bellinger, S1O.) 4: The counting was I'm IN
lied persons. 5. 1t is proved that in some
cases, as IN Ward No. l., there were more bal
lots than voters. The managers destroyed the
surplus votes under the general election law.
We contend they had no right, because that
law does not apply. g. There we're, IN some
cases, fewer ballots than there were voters,
and that is an uncertainty that vitiates the
election.
Sixth. The return of the result OF the election
was never made, because: l. Under the old
law and the act OF 1868, the general board only
are authorized to aggregate the result OF the
several precincts. This was never done. z.
The papers handed to the Mayor we're, many
OF them, not under seal.
Seventh. The ballots themselves were some
times DESTROYED, and in scarcely any case otlcla-
IL preserved and the custody accounted for, IN
consequence OF which the board could not do
that which the law requires OF them. The y
struction Of the ballots is the destruction OF
the evidence which thu law requires them to
take The accidental destruction is just as fatal
as if 1t had been done fraudulently, and is de-
feet that cannot be cured. (See Belllnger, 2O4'
2G7, $751;
In conclusion, Mr.. Miles said if the board
came to the conclusion that enough was before
them to satisfy them9that there had been no
legal and valid election, and that no persons
had been legally elected to, fill the ofhces OF
Mayor and Aldermen of the City OF Charleston,
he would suggcs: the Importance OF correct
wording of their verdict, and thaI nlgnt 10
secured either by taking counsel or by consult
ing their OWL attorney. He asked OF them
that samo earnestness in the consideration
that they had given in the investigation OF the
case, and hoped they would give their verdict
in such words and with such reasons as would
yindlcate them before thu whole country, and
put them above reproach and suspicion.
At the conclusion OF Mr.. Miles argument,
Alderman Whiden moved that the board take
q recess Of fifteen minutes, and thea meet In
secret session, which was agreed TO-.
were closed and his Honor .ho Mayor then
said they had arrived at the stage III this IN,
vestie alton at which, unless the board should
feel desrous ofhearing more evidence, 1t woulo
be proper to como to conclusion; to appoint
committee who shall draft decision and pre-
sent it for the adoption or rejection OF the
board.
Alderman Marshall then offered the follow
ing resolution, which, after some discussion
was put before the board:
Res2loed, That the board do declare the late
election for Mayor and Aldermen illegal and
void, and that no persons have been duly elect
ed to the said Offices Of Mayor and Aldermen
or the City Of Charleston &C said election. :,
The ayes and nays being called for, the result
Ayes-Aldormcn Gcddings, Potter. Lind
strom, Dereef, Cade, Olney, Honour, Whildon,
Yoigt. Marshall, Moore, the MayorW1,l2; H.
nrd, McKinlay-4
Alderman Whilden then moved that COM
mittee OF five be appointed to dra V up d.
| cision of the board in the matter OF this inyes-
tigatjor, to bo submitted for their considera-
ton as soon as possible, which motion was
carried.
| 0N'c
agreed 10, the Mayor appointed Aldermen
Geddlpcs, Derccf, Moore, Whilden and Mar
shall on the committee.
! Alderman Honour moved thrt the board take
q recess, and meet again at hali-past O'clock
this evening, which was agreed to.
The board having reassemblcdin accordance
with the motion of Alderman Honour, Alderman
Dorcef, in behalf OF jhe committee appointed
| to draft decision, presented THEN report, and
| the question being put tic result was as FOL
| lows:
strom, Dereef, Cade, Olney, Honour, Whllden,
Volgt. Marshall, Moore and the Mayor-12..
Nays-Aldermea Cunningham, Wall and NC
! Klnlay-3.
ent-Alderman Howard.
The following was the decision Of the board:
! The election Of majority OF the persons
voted tor at the Municipal election OF the City
of Charleston, held on the second tuesday OF
| November. instant, in pursuance OF the act o.
Assembly, entitled can act to provide for the
election OF officers Of the Incorporated cities
and towns in the State Of South Carolina.
ratified on the 25th day of September, a. u.
1868 having been contested on the part ol
sundry citizens and electors, and the Mans
gers of Election having been charged with
illegal conduct, and the Acting Board OF Alder
| men having been duly convened, ard having
proceeded, in accordance with the act, TO e4-
amino the returns, together with the ballots,
and investigate the case, IN order to declare
the said election, and to make decision which
shall be binding on all parties:
The said board having made such examlna-
| tiop. and investigated the case by taking tne
| testimony of witnesses, do find that the Man
-. I'M nrto trot