The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-02-01
FROM THE STATE CAPITAL.
The Election BilI-Keport OF the Conn
mftteo-Chances OF F1ght--The Codi-
tication OF the Law3- General Fro
ceedinss - The South Carolina Rail-
road-Juage Hoge.
[FRom OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT J

| r0ad-Jud&e aoSe.
TFRoM QUE OWN CORRESPONDENT
COLUMBIA, S. g., January 80, 1S69.-The mi
nority report of the Committee on Elections
ON the blfl of Senator Oorbin, is signed b!
Hon. q. Buck (Democrat) Senator from Horr!
County, and Senator W. E. Rose, Republican.
Of York County. ltis very brief and simply
OPPOSES the bill as unnecessary legislation, as
establishing bad precedent, and recommends
that the matter be left to the courts. AS vii
be seen the G. majority report"l ls signed by bu
two members, j. j. Wright, OF beaui9rt
chairman, and Senator ". r. Hoyt, OF Cole
ten. The following is the report
The Committee ON Elections, to whom was
referred o. bill to confirm and declare valid the
recent election Of Mayor and Aldermen OF the
| CITY Of Charleston, report that they have hao
access to the records and papers in the Su
preme Court relative to the Municipal eiection
had in the City of Charleston. From these II
appears: ,,,a 60, ,,,,,nio;-
pal officers in the City Of Charleston on the
10Th day of November last.
Second. That on the day subsequent to the
election the managers for the several precincts
met, each board by itself, counted or can,
vassed the otes cast, aud made their several
returns to the Mayor, whose duty py law IL
was to s'open the report OF said managers, an
nounce and publish the whole number OF votes
| cast. and tho whole number cast tor each can
didate, when the several candidates receiving
| the largest number of legal votes for the Of
fees for which they were voted for was to be
declared duly elected"
Third. The Mayor neglected and refused 10
publish the votes as returned to him by tho
managers. A protest against the election was
hu nlt1ZAnS
phlch it was conceived such case had arisen
"a ia provided in the latter portion OF section
| ( of the Municipal Election ac:, viz: when
the election Of majority OF the persons voted
for is contested, or the managers charged WITH
| illegal conduct In which case the returns, to-
gether with the ballots, shall be examined and
the case investigated by the Acting Board OF
aldermen. who shall declare the election, and
their decision ehall be binding upon all par
Tn pursuance of this provision of the law an
;nvestlgation was made by the Acting Board OF
Aldermen, running through some two weeks.
Your committee have had acoess to the eYl-
dence taken, as reported by the ofhc!a. report
er appointed by the Acting Board OF Aldermen, 81
from which the following facts substantially
are cleaned:
/. The managers appointed under the gen.
eral election law conducted the election, and
in the precincts as arranged under that law.
2. Three days registration were had on IN
three days Immediately preceding the elec-
ton. ,r,r
itical parties.
4. They conducted the registration in good
faith some Of the boards, however, dld not
REQUIRE the oath provided in section OF the
act to be taken by all persons, especially by
those well known to them to be entitled to
vote. This appears, II an error, to have been
committed without any wrong intent Ii does
not appear that any person was, IN conse-
oueuce. allowed to register who was not law
fully entitled to do so.
5. All the managers who were examined, tes-
tilted that the election was conducted BY them,
go far as they knew, according to law, fairly
and honestly Most o. them testify the, never
knew fairer election.
6. There was 60 riot or disturbance on cleo
t;on day to ipterf re with the election.
Z. It no where appears that any person voted
who was not entitled to vote, or that any per-
son was prevented from voting who was enti-
tied to vote.
g. The acting Board of Aldermen examined
the ballots and counted them so far as they we're
returned to them by the managers, aud found
them substantially tho same as returned by
the managers. From one or two precincts the
ballot, were not returned by the managers,
but were thrown away or destroyed after being
counted This was tho case especially In the
seventh ward.
8. Upon the case thus presented. it appears
the acting Board OF Aldermen declared the
election vJid.
Fourth. The aid of the Supreme Court was
then invoked to compel the Acting Board of
Aldermen to declare the election. To the al
ternatlye writ OF n1anda1aus issued the Acting
Board of Aldermen returned. substantially,
That the election was contested, that thereupOn
they had examined the returns, together with
the ballots, aud investigated the case, aud de-
clared the election void. The urt held the
return insufficient, that it was not competent
for then to thus declare the electi IN void, and
commanded them to declare the election, and
mike return hereof to the Supreme Court on
the 2Oth day OF January, 1863.
Upon this order the Acting Board OF Alder,
men proceeded to declare the election, and
made return thc:eof to the Supreme Cosrt: las as
commanded, on the Goth day OF January, 1863:
That return sets forth the whole number OF
votes cast for each candidate, and the office for
winch he was voted. md then declares:
That Gi!belt Plllsbuiy received the largest
number OF votes for Mayor.
That J. D. Geddings and james +. Greenere-
ceived the largest number OF votes for Alder
men of Ward No. l.
And William MeKinlay and E. W. NJ. A1ackoy,
tho largest number Of votes Tor Aldermen OF
Aud Robert Howard, David Barrow and 7.
J. Al ,ckey. the largest number OF votes for AL
dermen Of Ward No. 8.
Aud l.. L. Potter R:chart. Holloway, C. I.
Cunningham, Charles Voig aud W. r. ID.
Hampton. the largest numbcr Of votes for NJ
lermen OF Ward No. 4.
And &. T. Wall anc Philip Thorn, the largest
number of~votes TO. Aldermen OF Ward No. 5.
And NJ. II. Collins ara ] .lcolm brown. the
largest number of yo. @s f.: Aldermen OF Ward
No. 6.
And E. P. Wall. the Ia, esest number Of votes
for Alderman of Ward Fp. 7.
And T. Smalls, the largest number OF votes
for Alderman Of Ward No. 8.
And the Acting Board OF Aldermen say that
they have accordingly made public declaration
thereof.
This declaration OF the election, which has
been wrung from the Acting Board OF Alder
men oy writ of m1ndanus, by which they were
instructed rot as 10 how or what their decla-
ration should be, but that they must aud should
make the declaration the law says "shal be
binding on all parties" (See fifth section OF
so.)
Upon the case as thus presented. your COM
mlttee remark that tbs irregularities whoh &C.
Cured IN this Municipal election III the City OF
Charleston appear to have been merely form al.
and in no way affected the result of the cleo
tion.
The oath, which was not exacted in all cases,
and which appears at first view to present the
most serious question, is in fact aud in law
unconstitutional. 1t Is in contrayention Of
srotlons two and eight OF arti le eight of the
constitution, IN this: that it required as
qualification Of voting IonSer residence than
is required iu the constitution, and hence
tended TO abrldgo the prlyl sc Of voting.
.,,l, ~; ;a1t tnRln1-