The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-03-26
THE CHARLESTON ELECTION.
Proceedings Under the Writ of Quo
Warranto.
FINS T D Az

tne VIII VI quo WQTTdRto sueu Jul us 1uoei
I'D others. against the Acting Mayor AMI Aldermen
of Charleston. was begun yesterday in the Circuit
Court before Judge Carpenter.
The first question which arose was as to the quo
,uarran TO- alleged by the counsel for the Mayor and
Aldermen to be pending in the Supreme Court. The
CO unset for Mr. Pllsbury admitted that no order OF
discontinuance made by the court, and contend
ed that the discontnuance by the REALTORS in open
court was sufficient without order. The counsel
on th other ride con,epded that without motIoo
made and order Of court, Il ere could be no valid
discontinuance.
Mr. Corbn counsel for Mr.. Pillsbury and the
claimants, read argument in reply to the pleas OF
the Acting Mayor aud Aldermen. he argued that
the whole case resolved itself into two questions: l..
Whether Gilbert Prlsbury and others received the
largest number of votes for Mayor and Aldermen of
Charleston. 2. Whether the act to confirm and make
valid the election was indeed q law. The first point
Was admitted when it was acknowledged that the
Ac ting Board OF Aldermen did declare the election
which stfrst they refused 10 do. so that Plllsbury
and others were brought within the section Of the
State Constitution, which declares that In an election
the persons receiving the largest number of votes
hall be elected. Then ceased the tenure of the Act
ine Mayor and Aldermen, and because they refused
to 80 out, the Legislature passed the validating act
ANY defect that there might have been was made
goo by that act. That act was proper exercise Of
the legislative power 1he powers of corporation
are not in the nature of contra:t and no contract
was violated by it. 1t was not retrospective but
pr ospec.ive. In conclusion, he said that it was o
thing unprecedented in this Stale or the United
States, for the Acting Mayor and Aldermen to con-
tnue in offce in face of that law, and that their
usurrod power had produced none but peaceful re-
suits, we must thank God and the remarkable for
bearance of this people.
Mr.. Barker opened the argument for the Acting
Mayor and Aldermen, denying the proposition that
the Legislature had the right to destroy the charter
of the city to abrogate the privileges of the ople,
or to diminish in any way those sacrel rights which
are guaranteed and sustained alike by the coustiu
ton of this State and of the United States, and by
the fundamental principles which are the basis of
all civil law. He denied that the Legislature could,
without previously repearag the charter, thrust in
it's hand and touch one Of the franchises which are
the property of the corporation and corporators MIR
Barker read The sections of the Constitution of the
State which supported his view that the Legislature
had not the right tc abrogate the charter of the city,
and argued that if the Claimants could get posses
sion ofthe Offices Of Mayor and Aldermen their exer-
else of power would te illegal and an usurpation.
After showing what was understood by the words
off. and franchise, he contended that al
though un6er the original charter there
corporation end the Legislature, there had been
the charter as it stands contract which cannot be
violated. The city had been authorized to contract
debt, 10 issue bonds had become corporator Of
corporate ons outside OF the State; it had mad con-
tracts VII. its creditors and its right of retaning
its corporate 81 upe for the protection of Its creditors
and for its interest for sueiug and being sued
the Legislature could not abrogaie. The corpora
tion and corporators bound by these contracts
the very machinery was provided for enforcing
them, and could the Legislature step in and amend
and destroy without impairing the obligation of q
contract? Giving city the power to enter into
such iacts, puts it in the position of private
corporation and it is no longer within the power of
the Legislature to meddle with infii, ge upon its
chartered rights and privileges. 1t would be mon
rous tyranny TO take away the corporate franchises
wb lie the property of the corporaors still remain
ed bound under the acts of incorporation. But
,r~.. ~I-.t~- Sou-d &c ref'oaIou Svu'u .ue
Le gisature still do what they pl ased Under the
Constitution of the State and Of the United States
The CT izeps OF Charleston lad the undoubted right
Of choosing their Mayor. cnly the Mayor chosen
by them, and no other, can be Mayor, and be must
b elected under the law previously existing. Now,
the validating act" declares in the preamble that
the election not according to law; 1t was, there
fore, 20 make valid and legal what was invalid and
Illegal 1t was In reality, act to deprive the cit, of
the right of selfgovernment to deprive the people
of the right of choosing their officers under pree1
Is ting laws, to which they we're entitled under the
constitution. The Mayor and Aldermen who were
not chosen by the people ding to law could not
be made Mayor ind Aldermen by one act Of the Leg
islaturc, for II was Of the vested rights of the
citizens to have only the Mayor and Aldermen whom
t hey had elected. If there was any defect in the
title by which the Acting Mayor and Aldermen
continued to hold Office until their duly elected
sue cessors came, it was made good BY the "Val-
idating act" which was directed to them and re-
cogn ized them in their official CAPACITIES. Admit
ting, however, but only for argument, that the Le
gislature has the right to repeal the chas, 1t can
not without repeating the charter deprive the cIt
zens Of their right to fill their Offices with persons
dull elected To take blck the charter of public
poration it must be expressly taken back. and no
one privilege or right Of any citizen under such
harter can be taken away without such repeal. 1t
,an not be done by special act in favor of Pisbury
Or any other individual The citizens have the right
10 have their Mayor elected according to law unless
80 much OF the charter is repealed, and no Legisa
ture can take up and thrust in mau not so elected.
Even if Mayor Clark were TO resign the vacancy in
the Office would be as great obstacle in the way of
Pillsbury if AR Clark had been duly elected. Re-
move MIR. Clark, the de jacto officer. and tue Of
fee is vacant, and the vacancy must be filled
by On officer elected &C ordipg to law. Even if
Mayor Clark is ousted, the vacant Office will pre-
ec itself and the franchises of the citizens against
q ny intrusion by any persons not duly elected.
There is no duly elected persen TO fill the vacancy
and there must be new election. The charter says
go the constitution fays so, the Fou: teenth amend
ment to the United States Constitution says so
Great sensation and low murmurs among the color
ed people.) Mr. Barker then showed the alleged in
correctness of the resumption by counsel on the
other side, that Pillsbury admi ted by the Act
ing Board of Aldermen to have been elected with
is associates All that the claimants wanted when
they went before the surreme Court was to have
declaration upon which they might found their az
pca; ion for the witt of quo 'cdrronto. As soon as
he declaration made t.ey so before The Lcgi:-
a:u; end obtain on act which is to settle private
controversy. vh,h is pse tdcto void and unconsti-
int iona il the act has any force at all it is lreis