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

GILBERT PILLSBURY, Mayor.
EDWD. P.WALL. Alderman Ward NO. z.
L. 7. POTTER. Alderman Ward No. 4.
| G. I. CUNNINGHAM, Alderman Ward No. 4.
NJ. II. COLLINS, Alderman Ward No. G.
JAS. F. GREEN, Alderman Ward No. l.
f. ". NJ. MACKEY, Alderman Ward No. 2.
WM. McKINLAY, Alderman Ward No. z.
ROBT. HOWARD, Alderman Ward No. 3.
P. NJ. THORNE, alderman Ward NO. 5.
NJ. BROWN, Alderman Ward No. 6.
T. r. SMALL, Alderman Wald No: 3.
L. F. WALL Alderman Ward No.-5.
W.R. b. HAMPTON, Alderman Ward No. 4.
T.J. MACKEY, Alderman Ward No. 8.
DAVID BARROW, Alderman Ward No. ..
The Mayor said he supposed the object OF
the memorial was to establish right of the
claimants, and if he heard Of no objection 1t
would be received as information.
No objection being made, the memorial was
so received, and the Mayor announced the
board ready to proceed to business.
Mr.. Corbin, on behalf of the claimants,
arose and announced that the counsel for the
parties opposed to the protest had associated
with them the Hon. c. c. Bowen.
The Mayor then signifed the readiness of
the board to hear anything the counsel on
either side might have to submit.
Whereupon, MIR. Corbin read the following
answer to the protest:
To the Acting Board Of 4lde1men:
Gilbert Pillsbury, j.. F. Green, E. ". NJ.
Mackey, David Barrow, Z. J. Mackey, Richard
Holloway, r. Hampton, l.. Wall, T. Thorn, NJ.
a. Collins, Malcolm Brown and T. Smalls, by
their attorneys, D. II. chamberlain, Z. Z.
Bowen and D. L. Corbin, appearing IN response
70 tt,a II X IQmn.
bell and others against the election OF Mayor
and Aldermen, held on the 10th day OF Novem-
ber, A. D. 1868, do say:
1. That the Acting Board OF Aldermen ought
not to receive or entertain said protest for
want of jurisdiction; said protest seeks to set
aside and hold utterly void an election held In
pursuance Of an act entitled "Au act to provide
for the election of the officers of the incorporat-
ed cities and tUw1s in the State OF South Caro-
lima, passed September 25, A. D. 1853. And
no authority or jurisdiction is conferred upon
the Acting Board Of Aldermen to entertain or
decide such question.
2. The Acting Board OF Aldermen have iuris-
dlction only l1). when the election OF a nia-
jority OF the persons voted for is contested; or
conduct" (See act.) Hence they not only
ought not to entertain said protest as such,
but ought not to entertain it as ccntest OF
the election OF any person or persons to office,
because as such it MAKES out no case within
the jurisdiction of the Board Of Aldermen, viz:
It does not set forth the names Of the persons
voted for, or the names Of majority OF the
persons voted for, or the names OF the persons
whose election is contested, or that the man
ayers" have been guilty Of "ile9al conduct"
g. The first, second, third, fourth and fifth
grounds of protest cannot be entertained ex-
cept as grounds Of contest Of election Of par
ties to be named.
They are ill-timed, and cannot be entertain
ed till it is made to appear In an authentic
and official manner that Gilbert Pillsbury re-
ceived majority of votes cast and for what Of
fee, and that majority of the Aldermen, and
who. reported to have received majority Of
votes cast" did actually so receive majori-
ty OF votes cast
4. AS to the sixth ground Of protest, "That
the Board of Managers we're never organized
according to law" it is submitted that the Law
neither provides for nor requires any organi-
zation Of the Board Of Managers. They were
appointed and organized under the act entitled
"An act providing for the next general election
and the manner OF conducting the Same,"
passed September 18th, A. D. 1868. And
the act, under which this election was held.
makes no additional or other organization. Tie
language Of the law is, they ''are hereby au-
thor:zed and required to conduct tho elections
herein provided for"
Os
'sThat the result Of the election has never been
ascertained by the Managers of Elections as q
Board" it is submitted that there is no pro-
vision of law that requires tiat the ''result OF
the election should be ascertalned by the
Managers Of Elections as Board" The
Managers Of Elections, appointed and organ
lied under the General Election law for the
precincts within tie corporate limits OF the
City Of Charleston, constituted fourteen sep
arate and Independent "boards," and as such
they conducted, and "were required to con-
Duct" the election; as such they were required
ssto meet at ten o'clock A. NJ, on the day sue
ceeding tie election" and ''proceed to count
the votes" and TRANSMIT their report Of the
same in y sealed envelope to the acting Mayor
OF the CITY,"
6. As to the eighth ground of protest, "That
the reports Of the managers Of the several
precincts were separately and Independently
transmitted to the Mayor" it is submitted, as
matter Of law, that this is precisely as they
ought to have done, and hence can afford no
ground Of complaint or protest.
Z. AS to the ninth ground of protest, "That
the ballots, after being counted, were not pre-
served, but were, in many cases, actually de-.
stroyed," it is submitted, without confessiag
or denying the allegation, that there is no pro-
vision of Law requiring the ballots, "aftsr being
counted" to be preserved, or prohibiting their
destruction, hence the fact is immaterial and
Is no ground OF complaint or protest.
8. AS TO the tenth ground OF protest, "That
the ballots we're carried to the Mayors Office
and left there in open boxes" it is submitted,
without confessing or denying the allegation,
that it is immaterial; that there is no law
touching the matter, and the doing or not do
ing OF the act complained of cor furnish no
ground of protest.
For the reasons herein set forth, and for that
the said protest is irregular, uncertain and in
sufficient in law, it is respectfully asked that
the same be held for naught and be dismissed,
and the result OF the election OF November 10th,
A. d. 1858, be forthwith declared according to
law. D. Il. CHAMbERLAlN,
c. c. BOWEN,
D. T. CORBIN,
Attorneys for Gilbert Pilsbury, ct al.
Mr.. Corbin said this paper was presented by
the counsel for claimants in the nature OF
plea to the jurisdiction of the court, and
it was the duty OF this body to decide
that question which is first raised. 1t
is also II the nature OF demurrer, and OF
an answer to each one OF the grounds of pro,
test from beginning to end. II was one OF
those preliminary papers in trial which must
be passed upon, ami which they (the clamsnts)
desire pa 'sed upon by this board befo: e they
entered into any testimony. If the positions
taken in this paper were sustained, as the
claimants thought they should be, then it
ro1111 rracu1e tho falino nr any fostiU1ODv