The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-11-17

show by o great mass OF testimony that the
election was not free and open; that many were
not allowed to vote because actual force was
employed to exclude them; that they were
driven by threats Of violence and intimidation
from the polls, and that ballots were abstracted
from others by force. We will also show that
ballots were taken from the hands Of voters by
fraudulent means, and others substituted for
them. When we have shown ell this, we will
have shown that the election is utterly irresu-
lar, illegal and void.
These we're matters which met the eye OF
every citizen. Every one. to some extent, had
instances of these illegalities and Irregularities
brought home to his attention.
The counsel then said that they would not
only show the election to be illegal and void
upon the grounds they had already stated, but
that it has been illegal from beginning to end,
departure from. il not @ distinct violation OF
law. In the first place they would contend
that the election as prescribed by law to be
conducted has never had existence, because
the requisites of the law had not been COM
piled with. They would contend that the act
of 1868, declaring and providing for the general
election and declaring the mode in which 1t
shall be conducted, expressly makes it the
duty of the Governor to appoint commission
ers of election. 1t makes it the duty of these
commissioners to nominate or appoint mana
gers for each of the precincts, only providing
that there shall be at least one precinct in
each ward of the City OF Charleston. In ad-
dition to this the law expressly requires that
the commissioners Of election 80 appointed
shall organize as board, and that the mana
gers shall organize as O board, and shall elect
chairman. This organization for election
COUNSEL contended was not unfamiliar TO any
one who knows anything Of the manner IN
which elections have been heretofore con-
Quoted in South Carolina.
The next question was, how did the manag-
ers discharge their duty? They would show
that the illegalitles and Irregularities OF many
of the managers themselves is n ground for
vtiating the election. But after all these
scenes which he had commented upon had
passed, they came to the time when the COM
munity was agitated by the result of the fearful
contest through which they had passed-wien
| the attention Of every man had been called to
the subject, and when, Of all others, the man
| ayers should have been most scrupulous in the
discharge of their duty; and there they would
| be prepared to maintain that, according to the
lew of 1868, the managers refused to comply
with its requirements. They did not
count the votes in the manner pro-
vided tor by law. The act declares
that the managers of elections shall meet on
the days succeeding each election at some
proper place within the corporate limits OF the
| They would contend that the law distinctly and
emphatically directs that the managers, as
board, should meet at some place and count the
votes, under oath. They would contend that
| the managers We're mover so sworn; that IN the
counting OF the votes they were gully OF lrreg-
ularity by allowing the votes to be counted by
unauthorized persons, and therefore prevent
ing the managers from giving official state
ments Of the results. They would show that
the managers never have, in accordance with
the law, transmitted their report, but, on the
contrary, fourteen lndviduale have transmitted
to his Honor the Mayor papers purportlng to
be the result Of the election. The report which
the law prescribes is q single report OF the re-
suit Of the election, it matters not whether
there be four precincts or forty-four. But, in:
stead OF all this, there has boen no meeting OF
the managers no counting, no report trans
mtted to the Mayor under seal, and, therefore,
every preliminary which the act requires has
failed to have been complied with.
They would, in pursuance OF the act, show
that the case upon which they have arose upon,
that investigation which had brought them
there to-day. 10 strip this matter OF the Pro pro.
test Of all technicalities, The view which they
maintained with regard to the Municipal cleo
ton is this: that when all the requislons OF
the law have been complied with, and the
elections shall have been held acc cordnS to
law: when the managers shall have met
according to law, taken the required oaths,
counted tho votes as prescribed by law. asccr-
law, transmitted the result in the manner pre-
scribed by law, to wit: in sealed envelope to
the acting Mayor of the city; in that case the
Mayor on opening that paper, ID simply to
perform the function Of declaring the result,
theye being no dispute.
But suppose the case OF an election OF
Mayor and eighteen Aldermen, and the election
declared and pronounced in the city, anu one
Of the Aldermen is protested against ON the
ground that he did not receive majority OF
the votes as declared by the Mayor. What
would be the result? The Mayor elected, and
Alder,oen constituting majority, organize
and decide on the qualification OF such men,
Der protested against in the same manner as
the House OF Representatives OF tho STATE OF
States decide upon the gu qulLhcltlon OF tneir
members.
But suppose the managers arc charged with
illegal conduct, would the law prescribe that
parties should 80 through the ridiculous form
of q protest, and the managers have the power
to decide on the egalities OF their own con-
duct? Certainly not. Such form would be
useless and mockery: So 1t would be II the
law made majority of Board OF Aldermen,
whose election was protested, judges OF their
own case. Hcncc it was necessary that some
tribunal should be designated which should
try tho case and have the jurisdiction under
certain circumstances. This is committed to
tho acting board OF Aldermen OF cities anu
towns. IF the election Of majority OF
the Aldermen is objected to-, or if the
Isgality OF The whole election is dispute
or the managers are charged with lille =. Oh
duet: If the Mayo. had the power . open
that single envelope, and announce the result
before fhe illegalities were investigated, that
single acL would destroy the very court which
The law has decided should try the case. The
moment the Mayor proclalms the election
those he procIaims elected are entitled to their
seats. and tho acting Board OF Aldermen nave
ceased to exist. For the Mayor simply to take
the fourteen different returns OF the mana
gers and declare them as the result, would be
to destroy the board which the law prescrlDes
to try case where the seats OF o majority
of those elected are contested, or where
protest is made against the illegalitles OF the
whole election. 10 give such construction
to the act would be to make the Legislature
guilty OF an absurdity.
When the protest was prepared for the pur-
pose of submitting it to the Managers OF Eiec-
ton, as q board, and declaring to them that
the election was illegal and void on account OF
tho various frauds, and demanding OF them
that they should not transmit any report, we
we learned for the first time that there was no
such body in existence whom VIC could ADDRESS,
but that at least seven had handed in papers
claiming to be official returns. We denied the
RIGHT of these parties 10 transmit these papers,
and took the ground that that transm sslon
was irregular, that the Mayor could take no
noiice of it, and that the returns were not
male in accordance with law, aud contended
that the result should not be declared until on
onDortuuity was given the protestants to be