The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-12-21

claiming that the question, as presented. was
one over which the board could not rightfully
entertain Jurisdiction. The statute OF South
Carolina, he said, did not provide for protest
ed cases, but did provide for contested ones.
The question presented peloTe or the board was
that the Board Of Aldermen had made their
decision. He argued that, in order to allow
any person to contest the election, it was the
| duty of the Mayor, under the statute, to have
declared who was elected. Hence, the coun-
sci for relators were asking Tor n11nddnahS
to compel them, the Mayor and Aldermen, to
do their duty under the law by declaring the
election. The statute, he said, did not pro-
vide for one separate board OF managers. On
the contrary it did provide and there had
been appointed thirty-fve different boards in
the country under the general election law,
upon which hinged the municipal election law
Fourteen of these boards were confined to the
different wards and precincts in the City Of
! Charleston. They could not form themselves
into one separate board, because it was the
business of the managers at each separate
precinct to certify to their own wards, and that
could not be done if they had met as one
board. The managers had, therefore, COM
piled with the terms OF the law by making
| Separate returns for each precinct. In regard
| to the returns not being transmitted in sealed
envelopes he contended that 10 every instance
with two exceptions they had been 30 trans
mitted, and in those two exceptions the entire
board vent in person to the Mayor and deliver
ed their returns into his hands.
| Mr.. Bowen also co1tended that the board OF
managers had been legally appointed and
we're duly qualified. It had bee1 contended
before the Board of Aldermen that the fact
that the managers did not require the voters
| before registering to subscribe to the oath
mentioned in the act, was OF itself vl!latIon
of the election. In reply to that he wished to
say that the constitution OF the State provided
| certain qualifications for voters, and that the
Legislature had no right to require any one
presenting him self to register to take such an
oath, it being in direct conflict with the consti-
tuition of the State. The constitution declares
that every male citizen OF twenty-one years OF
age, who was resident at the time Of the
adoption OF the State constitution, should
have the right to vote Ihe e. oath a REQUIRED Dy
they had resided in the State one year. The
constitution was adopted by the people on the
18th of April last, and the election was held on
the 10th Of November He contendeI that
any one who was q resident OF the
State on the adoption OF the constl-
tuition was entitled to vote, nnd no other
himself to register had been refused permis-
sion to register because he would not take the
| oath, the managers could have been compelled
by law under the constitution to register his
name. If the doctrine contended for by the
| opposite counsel was sound, then the Acting
Mayor and Aldermen of Charleston, having the
right to cit in judameat on their own case,
they would make themselves perpetual. If an
election was ordered all they would have to do
would be to declare the election null and void,
and that no election had been held, thereby
holding over and retaining control OF the city
against the treo will of the people. There IS,
| he said, a maxim in law, that those asking tor
/ 4>>kl law
| II fraud had been practiced in the late election
none better than the protestants knew where
to find it. Preparations, he said, had been
made weeks before the election by the opposi-
tion to elect their candidate. and when 1t was
discovered they were defeated it was not sur
prisins that they should seek to defeat the
will OF the people.
Mr.. Porter, in reply, said ne had examined
the statute providing for the Municipal elec-
| ton mnutely, and argued that the action of
the Board of Aldermen, both in the hlvestiga-
ton and in the declaration OF the result or the
investigation, was judical, and that their ac,
ton could not be reviewed by this court, and
| that the statute expressly declared their aeoss-
ion to be binding upon all parties. In reply to
the argument that they were Limited to o de-
caration of the electiol-that is, to declara-
ton of the persons clected-he argued that to
declare IN election, meant as we'll to declare an
election void as to declare the election valid;
that there was nothing in the phrase to declare
the election which in any manner forbade the
Board of Aldermen to set aside the election.
Mr.. Porter then proceeded to show, as to
the second point, that the decision of the
Board OF Aldermen was correctly drawn from
| the facts proved at the investigations; that the
single fact that the oath prescribed in the
statute was in many cases entirely omitted,
and that in no single instance we're the voters
required to subscribe to the oath, was OF It
/ IL a.. IN fnof
sion, and set aside the election. The learned
counsel argued this point very elaborately,
contending that in no view Of the case could
this omission be regarded as anything less
than q vitiation of the entire election. No
single legal vote accordingly. he said, had
been cast in the late municipal election,
because no. single voter was required to sub
scribe to the oath. he argued that the obje
OF the requirement of the statute was to fur
nish the necessary evidence upon which parties
might be indicted and punished for perjury.
He said the statute might be either wise one
or foolish one; with that question the re-
spondents had nothing to do. The statute was
explicit, and gave to the Acting Board OF Aiaer-
men full power to canvass the entire election,
and to make up their descision according to
their judgments, and from that desoslon there
could be no appeal
Mr.. Barker followed Mr.. Porter. He said
he was almost wholly unprepared, not having
anticipated that the ar5um0n5 or Inc case
would be heard to-day, and having been en-
gagged in the United States Court. 1t was
case, however, in which he felt great inter-
est, as involving the rights and prosperity OF
community with which all his sympathles
and interests were identified. He had come to
defend the action Of the Acting Board OF Al
dermen, and he held that they had arrived
at correct decision upon the law and the
evidence. he argued that the statute had
expressly given to the Acting Board OF Alder
men full and exclusive jurisdiction of the en-
tire case: that after long and careful investi-
CATION the board had reached the conclusion
that the election was attended by so many
Irregularities as to render the entire election
illegal and void. They had expressed their
decision to that effect and there was but enc
way by which that decision could be changed,
that was by the counsel for REALTORS showing
that the board had violated the law in coming
to that decision; that IS, that the board had
acted illegally in reaching that decision
Mr. Barker then reviewed the evideuce at
length, introduced on the investigation before
the Board OF Aldermen, and held that, in all
particulars, they had proceeded in strict ac-
cordapce with the statute and that, as the re-
suit of their investigation, 'sthey had declared
the election" and had declared it void. He
agreed with his associate (SIr. Porter) that
the right to declare the election involved the
right to declare the election void; that is, to
set aside the election.
The court then adjourned to Monday, the
2lst instant, when the Hon. D. H. Chamber
lain will close the clse in behalf OF the re-
lators.