The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-03-31
THE GRIRLESTON ELECTION.
Proceedings upon the Writ OF Quo War
ront0.
THIRD DAY.


THIRD DAY.
The closing argument in the case OF tue writ
Of quo ,carrantV sued cut by Gilbert Pllsbury ana
others against The Acting Mayor and Aldermen Oh
Charleston was continued yesterday morning oy
the Hon. D. T. Corbln the counsel for the petition-
ors.
Mr.. Corbin reviewed his argument OF yesterday
that in this case not necessary to 20 into the
ouesjion of the statements Of fact made in the Vail
dating act. as the Supreme Court had passed upon
the objections urged by the Acting Board OF Alder
men and had foun1 them insufficient; also, that the
court compelled the Board 70 do their duty in decid-
inp between the parties, which decision was to DO
final. The court determined the law, and the Board
by their declaration. determined the fact. The
court held that there an election, and the board
declared who we're elected, and that decision s DIN
inr If these preliminary questions be true. 1t de-
cides the whole case.
Counsel then proceeded to review the act u
March, 1852 ssyipg, in passing, that the act WINS as
much a remedial act as those mentioned by the op-
posing counsel although they seem to think thlt
what was heaipg remedy for one set OF people was
a fatal poison to another. MIR. Corbln cited Jud"e
Cooley to show that the Legislature may determine
the way in which the judicial power shall be e1er-
cised and that what 1t could dispense with anterior
to the proceedings 1t dispense with, by retro
spective act subsequent to those proceedings also
that retrospective act remedying irregularities IN
voting and con cnductins an election. Is not VOID on
constitutional grounds. The Constitution OF South
Carona does net require the voters to take an oath.
the failure to take which was the great argument
against the validity of the election. Mr. Corbin
then cited case Is Wallace, S27 in which curative
or validating act maxi good an irregular election
was held to be valid; and the bonds issued by
county under such election were made bind
ing upon the county by the curative act.
This was . case whi h affected the prope-ty
of the people Of the county. They were
bound for o sum Of money. and in consequence
of Irregularities in the election the subscription
was declared vo d. But the Legislature passed
validating act and the validity Of the subscription
was then sustained by the Supreme Court OF the
United States. This WAS case similar, In its i'm
portance 10 the Charleston election case. MIR. Cor
bin tn. n read from Judge cooley's work, to show
that the Legislature had full power to pass retro
spective act. even although case was pending In
the courts. But the validating acts must always be
connned 10 matters With which tho Legislature
might have previously dispensed.
In regard 10 the objections to the constituGonality
of the Validating act, urged by the counsel tor the
Acting Mayor and Aldermen he said that to contest
the con,hmtionslty required great deal Of nerve.
Andrew johnson was bold man, but he admitted
that he must obey law OF Congress until it was de-
olared unconstitutional by the courts. The counsel
ha1J Thoua Wis
ths Mayor and Aldermen to stay in Office, In
defiance of the law and as there ia pen1lty
attached, If they are wron9 their clients and not
they will suffer. According to Judge Cooley,
cou t should not decide an act invalid un-
less it absolutely necessary to the decision Of
the cause and the court would avoid 1t il there were
any other ground upon which to deermiue the
cause; also. that the court would not copsidor the
unconsttuticnality Of an act upon question made
By persons not interested in it. Now, the Acting
Mayor and Aide men had no interest Ia the const:-
tutioray of the act They could not raise the ques
ton, although MIR. Lesesue might have done 80.
Cooley ul said that when courts are called upon to
pr, nounce invalid aot Of the Legislature. they
will never declare 1t void unless Its invaldity is
placed beyond doubt Where there Is doubt
ed the sections of the constitution to which the act
was sa,d to be obnoxious.
/. That the right of tial by jury is insrtersd with.
This was not the case The Board of Aldermen had
the power to deolde Lstween ths conte.tauts- and
their decision was to be final. This board had mo
members than commo. jury. and as 1t was special
tribunal to try the facts. that trial did not interfere
with the night Of TT al oy jury.
2 7ha. all laws M ~ b general ana universaI and
not partial The Validating act does refer to the
whole city Of Charleston and in that sense is gene
raj and not psttial. Any act that affected all the
people of Charleston alike was general. The coun-
sell on the other side ought to have shown that it
affected come of the Aldermen Of ,harlcston and not
others-some citizens OF Charleston and not others.
Then, he admitted, tho law would be void. Cooley
says that ell laws pubic in their object may be con.
fined to class or not; for the Legislature may de-
terfne whether all parts Of the state. or only GER
tain part of it, shall re a cted One law then, may
be given to Charleston and one to Greenvie, and al
aots given to them are general az to ,hem and are
not obnoxious to the constitution. Nor were any
personal rights intetfered With; for the people Of
Charleston have no vested rights in the charter.
which may be disposed Of as the Legislature ny
please.
s. That no law shall be Retrospective impose pen
ahy but BY judgment Of ones pesrs or tie tau Of the
land. The Validating act imposed no penalty for an
offence committed prior to Its passage. but for one
that might be committed afterwards. Nor was any
penalty imposed that could be enforced without
trial. But the true definition ia that Ietrosrectivo
laws which are not criminal in their nature do not
come under the b. ad Of er post taclo laws.
L. Tha: no act shall be enacted vhch u'pasrs the Oh
Egaion of contracts. An oh or. as MIR CLARK has no
contract to cont nue In office None OF the lsws
passed by the state in regard to corporations are
contracts between the State AID the oorporators or
the officers of the. corporations. The State may
change or abolish municipal ofa :es at any tune; and
their property In ofa-e, far as derived from the
State, must be controlled by tho State. And tho
franchise imposed upon the citizens OF the corpora
ton may be revoked by The Legislature at will
and in any manner. Mr.. Clark has no property
is h,s Office The Legislature may take away tho
whole compensation without interfering with tho
oHRce. The supreme Court had decided l6 Bow
ard 969 that tho state had the power to reduce the
CT tnpensation of State officers during tseir term OF
office; the court holding that public Office for
public purpose was not property in the sense Of
private right. This case decides that no publ C off,
GER has any private right In hls Office any louger than
tho Leps. .atrre chooses to allow him to remain and
be performs his duty. There is no contract between