The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-03-31
TIE OHARLESTON ELECTION.
Proceedings upon tho Writ of Quo War
rantO.
THIRD DAY.

rnntO.
THIRD DAY.
The closing argument in the Of the writ
OF quo suarranto, sued out by Gilbert Ptsbury and
| others against the Acting Mayor and Aldermen of
| Charleston. continued yesterday morning by
tho Hon. d. T. Corbn, the counsel for the petition
| crs.
! Mr.. COrbin reviewed his argument of yesterday
that this case 1t not necessary to go into the
question OF the statements OF fact made tn tho Vail
dating act, the Supreme Court had passed upon
the objections urged by the Acting Board Alder
men, and had found them insufficient; also, that the
court compelled the Board TO do their duty in decd
ing between the parties, which decision was to be
final The court determined the law, and the Board,
by their declaration determined the fact. The
court held that there election, and the Board
declared who elected, and that decision is bin
ing If these preliminary questions be true. 1t de-
cides the whole case.
Counsel tier proceeded to ze7iow the act OF
March, 1869. saying, in passing, that the act
much o remedial act as those mentioned by the op-
posn counsel although they seem to think th,t
what was q heairg remedy for set OF people
o fatal poison TO another. Mr.. Corbln cited judge
Cooley TO chow that the Legislature may determine
the way IN which the judicial power shall be exer-
ieed and that what 1t could dispense with anterior
to tho proceedings 1t dispense with. by retro
spective act subsequent to those proceedings; also,
that Retrospective act remedying irregularities in
voting and conducting an election. is not void
constitutional 81 ounds. The Constitution of South
Carolina does require the voters to take oath,
the failure to take which was the great argument
against the validity of the election Mr. Corbin
hen cited case Is Wallace. S27 In which curative
| or validating act maxi, good irregular election
was held to be valid, and the bonds issued by
county under such election made bind
| ing upon the county by the curative act.
| This was o Gaze whirh affected the prope tty
| of the people of the county. They
bound for sum of money, and In consequences
| of Irregularities in the election the subscription
| was declared vo d. But the Legislature passed a
validating act, and the validity of the subscription
| was then sustained by the Supreme Court of the
| United States. This similar. in its im-
por lance. the Charleston election Mr. Cor
| bin then read from Judge Cooley's work. to show
that the Legislature had full power to pass retro
| spective act. oven although case was pending in
the courts. But the validating acts must always be
| confined 10 matters with which the Legislature
| might have previously dispensed.
In regard 10 the objections the consitutionality
of he Validating act urged by the counsel for the
Actlng Mayor and Aldermen, he said that to contest
the consttuionsity required great deal of nerve.
Andrew johnson bold man, but he admitted
that he must obey law OF Congress until it was de-
clared unconstitutional by the courts. The counsel
| on the other side bolder still. They advised
| the Mayor and Aldermen to stay In Office, in
| defance of the law and as there IL penalty
| attached II they are wrong their clients and not
they will suffer According to Judge Cooley,
cou should not decide an act invalid un-
less it was absolutely necessary to the decision
he cause. and the court would if there were
any other ground upon which to deermiue the
| unconstituticnality of upon o question made
by persons not interested in it. Now. the Acting
Mayor and Aide men had no interest In the const-
utionality of the act They could the ques-
| ton, alt hough Mr.. Lesesne might have done 80.
Cooley 81 said that when courts called upon to
Pre- nounce invalid act Of the Legislature. they
will never declare ii void unless it's invaldity Is
plac ed beyond doubt Where there is DOUBT
the act must be susts.ed. &7. Cos,iu to1. rovivw-
ed the sections OF the constitution to which the act
| was said to be obnoxious.
l. That the right of trial by jury is i,tsrered with
This was not the case The Board of Aldermen had
the power to decide between the contestants, and
their decision was to be final. This board had mo-
members than eommor jury. and as 1t was special
tr1b una to try the facts that trial did interfere
| with the right Of trial by jury.
q That al asos shnH b. general and ~niversal and
not partial. The Validating act does refer to the
whole City Of Charleston, and in that sense is
raj and not partial. Any act that affected all the
people of Charleston alike was general. The coun-
| sci on the other side ought to have shown that it
affected some Of the Aldermen Of harleston and not
others-some citz- ms OF Charleston and not Others
Then. he admitted. the law would be void Cooley
says that all laws Lubic in their object may be con.
fined to one class not the Legislature may de-
ter mine whether a parts OF the State or only GER
tain part of it. shall 70 af cted. One law then may
be given to Charleston and one to Greenvie and all
acts given to them are general as to hem, and are
not obnoxious to the constitution. Nor were any
personal rights inteifered with; the people OF
Charleston have no vested rights in the cha-.e.
which may be disposed Of as the Legislature my
please.
8. That lao shall be retrospective or impose pen
alty bnt BY jtaemeat Of ones peers or tie lay Of tho
and he Validating act imposed no penalty for an
offence committed prior to Its passage but for one
that might be committed afterwards. Nor was any
pom atty imposed that could be enforced without
trial But the true definition is that ,etrcsL eotive
! We which not criminal in their nature do not
| come under the h. ad Of post Jacto laws
That no act shau be enacted sohch npairs the oh.
1gaf'on cf co attracts. An o er, Mr. CLARK, has no
contract to continue in Office None of the laws
passed by the state In regard to corporations ere
cont acts between the state the corporaaors or
| the officers Of the corporations. The State may
change or abolish mu nicipal Offices ct any time; and
their property in ofA,e. far derived from the
State, must be controlled by tho State. And the
franchise imposed upon the citizens of the corpora
ton may bo revoked by thu 1t Rislature at will
and in any manner. Mr.. CLARK has no property
| in his office The Legislature may take away the
whole compensation without interfering with the
o face. 1he Supreme Court had decided t1s How.
ard 869 that the state the power to reduce the
OF mpensaton OF State officers during e. cir term of
oface; the court holding that public Office for q
public purpose was not property in the sense Of q
private right. Ihis case decides that publ ofa-
has private right I'm his oce any longer than
the Legi sature chooses to allow him to remain ana
he performs his duty. 1here is contract between
tho state and the ofcer, and his pay night bs re-
isisaa day after his alection