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

,oFr1o1AILy REPORTED FOR THE DAILY NEwsl
The Board met at II A. NJ, pursuant to ad-
journment.
present-The Mayor; Aldermen Geddings,
Potter. Cunningham, Lindstrom, Voigt, De-
reef. McKinlay, Howard, Olney, Honour,
Whilden. Cade, Marshall. Moore and Wall-15
members.
Tie journal of the previous days session
being read aud confirmed, MIR. G. R. Miles re-
sumed the argument in reply for the protes-
tants.
Mr.. Miles stated that he would endeavor to
copdense his remarks as much as possible; at
the same time feeling the importance and re-
sponsibllity of his position he would not omit
to say anything necessary to the case on ac-
count of the consumption of time. He also
would endeavor to follow the example set him
by tile counsel on the other side, and endeavor
to argue the case dispassionately. He then
proceeded with his argument, Of which the
following are the points:
The question the board had to consider was
as to their Jurisdiction, and he proposed to
consider. first, whence the jurisdiction is de-
rived; second, the extont OF their authority.
and the effect Of their decision. He tten cited
the act of 1868, which, he said, gave them Ju-
risdiction. II. after the election has been de-
clarod. anv elector undertakes to dispute the
result. he does it under the act OF 1868, and
under the unrepealed law OF the State in refer
ence to elections, by application to the new
board. But he contended IN case the election
of n majority of the candidates is disputed, it
ia evident there can be no new board to hear
the case. aud in the event OF the managers
beinp charged with illegal conduct, the low
don't mean that they shall sit IN judgment
upon themselves. In both cases, therefore,
the law declares that the Acting Board OF Al
dermen shall investigate the scase, and that
was the ground OF their Jurisdiction. The elec-
tors who contested this election could not go
IN the new Board OF Aldermen, because their
seats were contested. Nor could they go to
fine managers, because they are charged with
sncb ILLEGAL conduct rs vitietes the election.
The law. therefore, directs them to 60 to the
acting board, because they occup precisely
the positi IN Of the new board in case only the
seats of q minority of them were contested.
The nresent board, he said, held their seats by
virtue of an act Of the General Assembly, and
couli not be ousted by any tribunal until their
successors had been duly elected and qualified.
Another answer to the question of jurisdic.
ton was that the paper Of the claimants, read
to the board at the opening OF the trial, was
nm acknowledgement of the jurisdiction, and
that the plea to the jurisdiction came too late.
Second. As to the extent of their authority:
He said, when they organized as an acting
BOARD OF Aldermen their powers and duties
were precisely similar 10 thosa OF the Board OF
MANAGERS in the case Of the cGntestng OF a
single seat.
Third. As to tho effect of their decision :
The law says, when they had done what the
law had required of them. they shall declare
! the election, and their decision snaN DC nlna-
ing or all parties. 1t is similar to an arbltra-
tior,. Tho law makes thom the arbtrators-
tbe tribunal 70 decide this question-and the
effect is the samc. =,
Counsei then alluded to the distinction that
had beeu made between the words contest and
protest. He contended that there was no such
wo, j as protest; that contest was the technical
word and the piper was only called protest on
tba endo,s s.nent; contest means dispute,
protest denial, and they are synonymous
when applied to elections. Therc was no dis
t,nctiou between then. Protest is remon-
strance. addressed to Legislature by its con-
stitucnts (Cushipg, 435), and. in le islative
law. Goes not have any reference to- elections.
In the index of BellInger's Compilation, the
word protest does not occur. Inc teccniGa
word is always contest. protest - that by
means of which you contest on election.
Counsel cited A. A. 1903, Belinger, LOG, A.
A. 1888, Bellincer, 174 A. A. 1S46, Beliinger
IT'S, showing that to contest an election means
to dispute its validity, and that the duty OF the
tribunal that hears tho case is to say whether
it is valid or invalid.
he claimed that he represented not MIR. LIE,
scsne or any OF the Aldermen on his ticket, but
| n number of citizens, corporators and electors
of the City of Charleston, and they, the board
had right, though tho petitioners abandon
ed their claims, to investigate. lSee Cushing
26O.) They therefore had q right to contest
The whole election as illegal, and contendee
| that they, the board, wero Mayor and Alder
men, because nobody had 5ccn chosen ano
were duly qualified to succeed them.
This being the case, the questlon 10 DC &c
| cidcd by tho board are:
First. Has there icon any valid election helc
for Mayor and Aldermen of Charleston?
Second. II there has been valid election
who has been elected?
The second question is not embraced in thu
argument, according to the resolution OF thu
board.
Tho question Of the vail lity OF tho election
/ he contandcd was to be decided IN two ways
! l. Bv the process of examining tho return:
together with the ballots. 2. BY such othe
| evidence as shall be adIuced by The lnvestGa
| ton OF the case.
The board has already gone through th'
| first process which the laT requires. ihe onl,
| witnesses they have examined We're the mana
| gers, and this only with view to cnn ,le then
to examine the ballo.s and returns. Ii ut thls
stage the board Is Satisfied that tho election Is
invalid they may so decide. But if the board II
satisfied that thorc was Il valid election the.
must proceed to Investigate the case and de
eide who has been elected. Counsel cited the
Tilman Watson case, Bellinger, p. ATT, which
he contended, was a case precisely similar u
tho one now before the board, and tina. the
| board had the eame functions to perform! as
the Ser ate had III that case. The counsel on
the other sido. say the board have no right te
saw that this election is void, but mu It simply
declare the election" We contend, said he
that you DO declare the election" when yor
declare 1t illegal and void.
He then proceeded to examine the following
grounds, upon which 1t was contended tina
the election was illegal and void. Before pro
| ceediug, however, he contendod that the act o
1868, providing for the next general election
did not touch the Municipal election, excep
that the same managers are charged with con-
Quoting it, The law regulating this election
he contended, was to be found in the act o
1868, providing for the Municipal elections, ant
in the general election law Of the State, whlct
was not inconsistent with nor repealed BY
that law. The general election act OF 1861
merely provided for 1.-THE next general elec
tion and the manner Of conducting tho same
| When the election was over 1t was therefore
dciunct, and docs not apply to Municipal cleo
tions except that, as matter OF convenience
1t took the same managers to conduct them. .,
He considered the clcction invalid because 1t
was not conducted IN accordance with the ac
of 1865 and the unrepealed law OF this State
iu the following particulars:
| First The MANAGERS OF Elections wore no,
qualified according to law. They we're moi
| e,yorn ~, tba ,y,onnar nrnscribed by law. Ih(