The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-12-23
THE CONTESTED ELECTION.
THE CONTESTED ELECTION.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE The SUPREME COURT.
Arguments of Mr.. c. Richardson Miles
and the Hon. d. H. Chamberlain.
THE QUO WARRANT0 CASE.
THE QUO WARRANTO CASE.
TSEcoND DAY.l

COLUMBIA, S. c., December 81, 186S.-Th'
Supreme Court room was crowded to excess
this morning by apparently anxious and inter
ested spectators. Chief Justice Moses ant
Justices Willard and Hose were upon the
bench. As before, Mr. Niles able argumen
was listened to with deep attention, as wa'
also that of the Attorney-Genera!.
Mr.. Miles said, in commencing, that he mus
beg the indulgence of the court to allow him
on account of his absence during the previous
arguments, to argue the whole case de nouo
He said he entered upon the discussion will
! q sense Of responsibility and feeling OF conf.
dence; Of responsibility on account OF the very
grave interests involved, AID feeling OF conn.
dence because of the clear right both upon the
law and the facts, which he did not doubt the
court would decide had guided the Acting
Board of Aldermen. He recalled the circum-
stances attending the investigation in the City
| of Charleston, and contended that the Alder
men had followed the spirit and letter OF the
statute in conducting that investigation.
They had examined the returns, together with
the ballots. and investigated the case as a
court. The statute made them o Judicial trl-
bunal. They had sat as such; they had exer-
cised judicial discretion; had examined wit
nesses, received evidence, and made up a de-
cision compounded of law and OF fact. The
statute had distinctly declared that their de.
cision should be binding upon 'au parties,
and his first position was that the decision OF
the Board Of Aldermen, whether wisely or un-
| wisely given, whether correct or Incorrect,
lawful or unlawful, was final and conclusive,
subject to no appeal, review or supervision OF
any other tribunal.
MIR. Miles cited cases in South Carolina, both
in the courts and in the Legislature, to show
that under the act OF 1889, and under the gen.
eral election laws of South Carolina, the same
power had been given to Managers OF Elec-
tions which was low given by statute to The
Acting Board of Aldermen. Counsel specially
reviewed the case OF Grier vs.. Shackelford, the
well known contested election case OF the She.
riff OF Georgetown, s. c., where the court had
ruled that from the decision OF the Board OF
Managers there was no appeal. their decision,
under the statute, being final and conclusive.
He also cited numerous other election cases IN
South Carolina, in support Of the proposition
that the decision of the Board OF Aldermen
was not renewable. But said MIR. Miles, II it
be renewable and reversible by this court,
was there any ground upon which it ought to
be reviewed and reversed? This, he said, is
our second inquiry.
He then proceeded to discuss infinitely the
conduct of the election on the part OF the man-
ayers, pointing out the grave irregularities,
informalities, and, as he contended, fatal ille-
galities which marked the whole course OF the
municipal election. The managers were not
properly sworn, the oath was, in many cases,
not administered, and in no case was it sub
scribed to; consequently, he contended that
not single legal vote had been cast. II 1t
were denied that the Board OF Aldermen had
the general power TO set aside the election IN
terms, they still had the power to declare that
ten Aldermen we're not elected, that fifteen
were not elected, and, by parity of reasoning,
not one was elected; and that IN this way the
same result would be reached as II they had
formally declared that the election w. void.
With reference to the oath required by the
statute, he contended that II the oath was un-
constitutional the election was void, because
that oath was administered; that If it was con-
stitutional. the election was void because it
was not administered. But he believed that
the oath was proper and legal one; that it
was in the nature of o regulation OF the cleo
ton and guard against unqualified voters. He
contended that if the Legislature had the
power to fix the mode and manner OF election,
they had the same power to determine IN what
way it should become known to the managers
that the party presenting himself for reglstra-
tion did possess the qualification OF legal
voter. With reference to the phrase so
much insisted upon by counsel for the
petitioners, namely, 'to declare the cleo
tion," he contended that to declare the
election meant In all cases to declare valid
election. hr. Miles cited authorities showing
that by an election the law always intended
due, valid and legal election. In conclusion
he said that the granting of peremPtory writ
of naandamuS lay in the wise and sound dis
cretion of the court. He felt justified in ap-
pealing to that discretion, and in reminding
this court that under the decision OF the Board
of Aldermen declaring the election to be void.
the interests Of the City of Charleston had
been subserved; that the city securities had
advanced; the feeling Of disquiet and uncsr'
tainty which had prevailed prlor to that decl,
sion had passed away; that nothing but good
results had followed frem that decision, and
he asked this court not to disturb that decl-
sion; not to compel the Board of Aldermen to
reopen that case, and not to consume further
time in reaching another decision.
He contended that if the peremptory mazda
mus was granted, the Board OF Aldermen
would still have to examine and determine the
questions Of fraud, bribery and illegal voting;
that this would occupy long period OF time,
and that probably before final decision could
be reached, the time for q regular charter
election would arrive.
The Attorney General, the Hon. D. Il. Cham
berlain, replied.
In opening, he said he should not detain the
court with any expression OF the personal
feelings with which he came to argue this
cause. IF he felt sense of responsibility it
which he should argue the case. If he felt an
intense personal sympathy with the petition
ers whom he represented; il he felt the intense
personal earnestness in arguing this case IN
behalf of o community with whom his interests
and sympathies we're identified, he could not
possible conceal it from the court.
On the 10th of November, under an act en-
titled tan act to provide for the election OF
officers of incorporated cities and towns in this
State" an election had been held for municipal
officers for the City Of Charleston. On the day
succeeding the election, the final count was
made and the returns duly transmitted to the
Mayor. On receiving these returns, the Mayor
having received protest against the election,
upon the advice, as we are told and believe: OF
the learned city counsel, and who represents
the respondents here, had declined and refused
to announce the result, and referred the whole
matter to the decision of the Acting Board of
Aldermen. A long investigation had followed,
and the result of that investigation had been
that the Board of Aldermen had declared that
there had been no legal and valid election.
The friends Of Mr.. Pillsbury at that lnvestlga-
tion had claimed and still claim that the inves-
tigation was irregular and unlawful, lnasmuch
as no announcement of the election OF any OF
the candidates had beeu officially made. The
Board of Aldermen, however, had passed on the
investigation, and we were compelled to SO
through that investigation.
But we denied that it was IN any sense q
proper contested election case. We had also
earnestly contendcd before the Board OF Alder
men that they had no power m any event to
do anything but to declare the election. The
Board of Aldermen took different view,
claimed Jurisdiction to set aside the election,
4 Il,,I a a1antinn vOIl