The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-11-13
The Election Protest.
THE POWER AND DUTY OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN
TIE PREMISES.

It is somewhat remarkable that in the ac, Of
the LEGISLATURE, under which the Municipal
election OF Tuesday last was held, there is no
provision made for new election under any
circumstances whatever.
In calling attention to this fact it is not our
purpose to express an opinion, much less to
impress an opinion on others; Tor On opinion
on tnis matter, to be worth anything, should
be the result of elaborate examination by coun-
sci learned in the law. We merely wish to sug-
gest some ideas which have occurred to US on
reading the act, which may not have occurred
to others, and which it might bo unfortunate
to have suggested at too late stage OF the
proceedings in protest.
The only words of the act directly relating to
any dissatisfaction which might be felt in re-
gard to the result of an election held under it
are the following:
The Managers of Election shall decide con-
tested cases. subject to the ultimrte decision
OF the Boards OF Aldermen or ~ardens. when
organized, except when the election OF o
majority Of the persons voted for are contested,
or the Managers charged with illegal conduct,
in which case the returns, together witd the
ballots, shall be examined and the case IN
vestigated by the acting Board OF Aldermen,
who shall declare the election, and their de-
cision shall be binding upon all parties.
The only other provision having any bearing
upon the decision OF an election is that re-
quiring the officers elect to be inducted into
Office on the Monday following the election,
which would seem to require that The Board
OF Managers or Board Of Aldermen, as the
ha eLo olra fbai dpci
or before the said Monday.
Now, it has occurred to US that there ID no
provision made here for protest properly SO
called, but only for the defeated candidates
contesting the selts OF their successful COM
petitors. In other words, that this act pro-
vides no remedy for the public who may be az
grieved by the result of the election, but only
for candidates, who, having been r;ghtfully
elected, are deprived OF their seats by fraud or
mistake. IF this view is correct, there is no
right of protest, under this or any other law.
for the act e1pr essly declares that the decision
Of the Board Of Aldermen "shall be binding
upon all parties" The power OF the Board Of
Aldermen is thus limited to deciding dispute
between two candidates as to which is elected.
II A is not elected, B is, and there Is an end Oh
the matter. No need for new election. The
duty of the Board of Aldermen under the act,
in this view Of the matter, is plain. They
must examine the election in all its details, and
give their decision in favor Of the candidate who,
in their opinion, has the greatest number
of legal votes. They must. with due regard to
their oath Of Office, declare either MIR. Pisbury
or Hon. d. D. Lesesne to be Mayor of Charles
ton. If the circumstances of the case are such
that they cannot constitutionally declare
either party to be elected, for example, if a
number Of the ballots have been destroyed, as
is said to be the case in the present instance it
will be their duty to declare that the election
has been without result; for it is not to be sup
posed that the Legislature would require them
to make decision against the truth. But even
then they have no power to declare now cleo
tion. This is o defect in the law which can
only be remedied by new act AT least, such
is view of the case which we think worthy of
consideration.