The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-03-30

function that could only be exercised by the courts.
He pointed out the unconstitutionaiy Of the act as
relating TO more than one subject. and the subject
not expressed in the title. And if any right or
privilege is to be taken from the citizens it must be
done by express act or is otherwise illegal and
void. There is also appropriate legal remedy Tor
the claimants and where such is the case any inter-
ference by the Legislature is improper and unwar-
rantable. He showed the discriminating character
of the ac and tha. by it Mr.. Clark and his Aldermen
we're cut out from the benefit of the law of the land
If the Legislature modified or changed charters it
must bo under proper limitations The Legislature
connded cer;ain powers under the charter Of the
CITY, and as long as those powers not repealed,
the Legislature cannot, BY side wind, knock from
under The feet of their agents their rights and prvi
eges, and administer for them the things authorized
to be done in their own way II there was no cleo
ton there must be new election. If there has
been an election, the Legislature cannot decide who
were elected AS long the charter is of force, and
it has not been repealed the Legislature cannot OBJ
trude itself And if the election was void there must
be a new election. The election has BEEN held
under the law and no one is declared elected; there
FORE the Mayor and Aldermen must hold Over until
the expiration of their term unless there Is an eec-
ton under spcial act. The Validating bill is not
only retrospective, but it undertakes to uuseat Mr.
Clark and bis Aldermen and seat Mr. Pillsbury and
his Aldermen It is contrary to the spirit Of all law
and to the express terms Of the constitution.
Mr. Porter explained the circumstances attending
the cases of Mount Pleasant. Timmonsyille and
Moultrieville. showing that they did not bear upon
the present case saying emphatically that the old
LEGISLATURE of South Carolina never did undertake to
interfere with contested election, outside of mem.
bers of It's own body. He called for the enforcement
OF that section of the constitution, which declares
that all laws shall be equal in their application, and
argued that under the Fourteenth constitutional
amendment the Supreme Court could, in all cases OF
deprivation of rights property, reviow and revise
the action OF the States. In conclusion, he said that
he committed the case to the court with full conf
dence. We looked to the courts in these times Of
revolution as We would do to the protecting shadow
of great rock in the weary land. The shades had
| come over US like the shadow of summer cloud,
aud we hoped that o summer cloud 1t would pass
away and leave not wreck behind.
Alter the recess of the court. tie Hon. D. T. Cor
bin began the closing argument for the claimants
G. Pills bury and others. BE said that he approach
ed the case with fitting sense OF its importance
and felt as deeply as any could do the momentous
interests which it involved He said that prior to
NoyemhGs 10, the Acting Mayor and Aldermen held
Office by virtue Of military orders, the elections Of
1906 and the acts OF 1SO8 But the act to quiz. rights
under military orders applied only to rights OF prop
erty and was in force to that end only, except to
persons holding Office who would hold until their
successors were elected and qualified. This was the
| ,1,up hall ha onfu
were to the same effect The elections of November
10 were he'd under the Municipal election law, and
if that law had been carried out the tenure oiof e
must have terminated and if the validity of the cleo
ton is sustained the Acting Mayor apd Alderm- n
| must vacate. Mr.. Corbn then stated the whoe case
of the election of November 10Th, saying that
some important points had been omitted
, doubtless Inadvertently the statement made
by the otLer side. He s1il that if the Mayor had
promptly declared the ccction much trouble would
have been avoiIed. He had pleaded to The u,isdic.
tion of the Acting Board OF Aldermen claiming that
they could decide between candidates only. and not
the legality of the election. The irregularities in
the election were passed upon by The Supreme
Court for it the reasons given by the Acting Board
of Aldermen mad been su ficent TO vitiate the cleo
or have said that the grounds were insufficient The
declaration then made that G. Pillsbury and
others received the largest number of votes That
was all that was necessary The postscript IN which
..----sr<-.n +" not neces-
sary, and WIS impertinent When he moved 10 attach
the Aldermen, the case was argued md the court
declared the return sufficient. Behind this the res
pondents could not 60. Where the Beard was wrong
was in not deciding between the parties If they had
declared Mr. Lesesue elected. the other party could
have said and done moth ng. Whist they wanted was
q decision and they had it at last Had the Board
declared Tom Jones elected no one could have over
come the decision. The question Of fact. Of which
counsel spoke had been determined by the declara-
tons of the votes cast and could not be tried again
So the defendants declared themselves out of Office,
and Pillsbury and his Aldermen elected. In regard
to himself, as the matter took q rathar personal
turn, he would say that he had done what he be
lieved to be bis plain and simple duty He was not
shaken by the sharpness Of adverse criticism, nor
did he retain any unknd feeling 1t was his desire
to set the whole case at rest beyond all doubt which
caused him to draw up the Validating act
Mr. Corbin then reviewed the acts which form the
city charter citing authority to show that the charter
was always subject TO the control ard revision BY the
General Assembly. The city was chartered for pub
lilo purposes, and there such thing as vested
right in it The charter had beel amended in every
possible way it might properly be since the corpora
ton exercised It's powers n and by tn, General Assem-
bly, and not for the benefit OF the citizens. Contracts
with third persons could not be interfered with. but
all else could be changed, or even abolished. The
Legislature could confer legislative powers on mu-
nicipal bodes but it hai s!:c right to abolish them
without consulting the wishes Of the corporators.
Remedial statutes hold good when retrospective.
If they interfere with vested rights, the principle be-
ing that they refer to property AMI not to rights
der public corporations for public PURPOSES 80
that these chartered rights and vestd rights not
recognized in law or fact, aud only exist il the i'm
agination of attorneys Insupport of ihesc positions
Ar Corbin cited Judge Cooley on the law of corpor
atoms.
The further hearing Of the argument was then
postponed to to-day OF 10 A. III.
-A-----
TEE NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. OPERETTA.-
Great disappointment was occasioned yesterday by
the non-arrival Of Nr. Temp.eon's female opera
troupe, and it only mitigatrd by the announce
meut that the delay would be but for single night,
The agent says that they will positively appear to-
night and perform a sparkling opereta, in which
th-y will be npanied by frst-rate orchestra.
seIcrt of hN