The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-02-01

| The Election BilI--K eport OF the Com
mtttee--Chanccs OF q FiGht--Tho Coai
ficntlon OF the I.aws- General Pro
ccedings go The South Carolina Rail
road--Judgc HOgo.
[FRoM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT
COLUMBIA, s. g., January 80, 1S69.-The mi
nority report Of the Committee on Elections
on the bill of Senator Corbin, is signed b,
Hon. II. Buck (Democrat) Senator from Horr.
County, and Senator W. e. Rose, (Republcan
Of York County. 1t is very brief and simply
opposes the bill as unnecessary legislation, al
establishing bad precedent, and recommend
that the matter be left to the courts. AS vii
be seen the :. majority report'is signed by bu
chairman, and Senator w. T. hoyt, Of Cole
ton. Tho following is tho report
The Committee on Elections, to whom was
recent election Of Mayor and Aldermen OF the
City Of Charleston, report that they have had
access to the records and papers in the Su
preme Conrt relative to the Municipal election
had in the City Of Charleston. From these il
First That an election was held for munich
| 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 votes cast, aud made their several
returns to the Mayor, whose duty by law it
| was to 'sopen the rep )rt Of said managers an
nounce and publish the whole number Of votes
cast and the whole number cast for 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
| declar cd duly elected"
| Third. The Mayor neglected and refused to
publish the votes as returned to him by the
managers. A protest against the election was
winch it was conceived such case had arisen
as is provided in the latter portion OF section
of the Municipal Election ac:, viz: s'When
the election OF a majority of the persons voted
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 shall be binding upon all par
ties"
In pursuance of this provision Of the law an
| investigation was made by the Acting Board OF
Aldermen, running through some two weeks.
Your committee have had &C access @ to the evi-
or appointed by the Acting Board of Aldermen,
from which the following facts substantially
are cleaned:
l. The managers appointed under the gen.
eral election law conducted the election, aud
in the precincts as arranged under that law.
| 2. Three days registration were had on tn Q
three days Immediately preceding the cleo
| ton.
8. The managers were composed of both po-
litical parties.
| 4. They conducted the registration in good
faith some Of the boards, however, did not
require the oath provided in section 8 Of the
act to be taken by all persons, especially by
those we'll known to them to be entitled to
vote. This appears, If an error, to have been
committed without any wrong intent. 1t does
not appear that any person was, in conse-
| quence, allowed 30 register who was not law
| fI1llv entitled to do 40.
5. AL the managers who were examined, tes-
| tilted that the election was conducted by them,
SO far as they knew, according to law, fairly
| and honestly. Most OF them testify they never
knew fairer election.
| 6. There was no riot or disturbance on cleo
| tion day to interfere with the election.
| z. 1t 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.
8. The acting Board Of Aldermen examined
the ballots and counted them, SO far as they we're
! returned to them by the managers, and found
them substantially the same as returned by
| the managers. From one or two precincts the
ballots we're not returned by the managers,
but were thrown away or destroyed after being
counted. This was the case especially in the
seventh ward.
3. Upon the case thus presented, it appears
the acting. Board Of Aldermen declared the
election Void.
Fourth The aid of the Supreme Court was
| Aldermen to declars the election. To the al
formative writ Of sndnddnaus issued the Acting
Board OF Aldermen returned, substantially,
that the election was contested, that thereupon
! they had examined the returns, together with
the ballots, and investigated the case, and de.
clared the election void. The court held the
return insufficient, that it was not competent
for them to thus declare the electi IN void and
commanded them to declare the election, and
make return thereof to the Supreme Court on
the Goth day Of January, 1869.
Upon this order the Acting Board of Alder
men proceeded to declare the election, and
made return thereof to the Supreme Court, as
| commanded, on the Goth day of January, 1862
| That return sets forth the whole number of
votes cast for each candidate, and the Office for
which he was voted, and then Declares:
| That Gilbert Plllsbuly received the largest
number OF votes for Mayor.
| That J. D. Geddings and James F. Greene re-
| ceived the largest number Of votes for Alder
men of Ward No. 1.
the largest number Of votes for aldermen OF
| Ward No. 2.
And Robert Howard. David Barrow and T.
J. Nj Mackey, the largest number Of votes for al.
| dermen Of Ward No. 8.
And L. r. Potter, Richard Holloway, G. T.
Cunningham, Charles Voigt and w. r. Fl
Hampton, the largest number of~votes for AL
dern1en OF Ward No. 4.
And q. r. Wall and Philip Thorn, the largest
number of votes for Aldermen Of Ward No. s
And M. n. Collins and Malcolm brown, the
largest number OF votes for Aldermen of WARD
| Moe.
And e. P. Wall, the largest number Of votes
| for Alderman Of Ward No. z.
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 ny writ OF re1ndGsnus, by which they were
instructed, not as to how or what their decla-
ration should be, but that they must and should
| make the declaration the law says s'shau be
binding on all parties" tsee fifth section o
| act.)
| Upon the case as thus presented. your com
| mittee remark that the irregularities which oc
Cured In this Municlpal election in the City o
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 ut first view to present th
most serious question, is In fact and in iay
unconstitutional. It is In contrayention o
sections two and eight OF artisl eight Of the
constitution. in this: that 1t required as
| qualification OF voting longer residence thar
| is required Ia the constitution, and henc
tended to abrldge the privilege OF voting.
fhn,s yu1o incv II