The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-01-29
FROM THE STATE CAPITAL.
The Charleston Election Bill--speech Of
Mr. Corbin--vVhnt was Done with the
Bin-The General Proceedings.
JFnoM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT. ]

FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENCE
COLUMBIA, s. c., January Ex-senator Cor
bins Charleston Election bill is the principa
subject of interest now before the General AS
sembly. The motion by Mr.. Corbin that the
bill be taken up for second reading aud con
sideration to-day, raised some unexpected op
position.
Mr.. Leslie said he was unprepared for any
discussion to-day, not knowing what lega
principles were set forth in the bill. 1t was
one OF the most important bills ho thought
that would be brought TO the attention OF this
General Assembly, and it was desirable that
when vote was taken upon 1t, they should al
vote with full understanding of the many
doubtful questions involved i'll the bill. One OIL
the questions would be, can the party claiming
the Office of Mayor be seated by the General
Assembly if he was not legally elected. dc
wanted the bill referred to the Committee On
| the Judiciary.
Wright, OF Beaufort, also opposed any hasts
action on the biil, and moved as an amend
ment that the bill be referred to the Committee
on Elections.
MIR. Corbln m. we'd to amend tho smendment
instructions to report tomorrow" MIR. Cor
bin said:
have no obj action to the reference Of this
bill to the judiciary or any proper committee.
But it is very simple bill, and desire that it
should be considered at once. know perfect
| ly well that it is bill that is going to excite
the opposition Of some Of the gentlemen nn
this floor. know it is o bill that eXcites the
| feeling of great many in this State.
| will state TO the Senate in advance.
that have been advised that might expect
opposition to this bill. It is we'll known
to the s nate that an election was held IN the
City OF Charleston under the election law
aal ,1ar ooE RI
regulate elections in Incorporated cities
and towns OF this State. The election Was
held at the time fixed by law. AS is well kn owli
in that election, certain persons were elected,
and certain other persons, after the elaction
was ascertained, got up a protest. That Cleo
ton had passed. off quietly, but as soon as it
was known that the Republican candidates
were elected, all at once there sprung up, on
the part of the Democrats, tremendous fu-
rore and an effort to set it aside. They insist
ed, then, that the election WAS illegal and void,
and this tremendous protest was seIt into the
City Council to arrest the declaration of tho
election.
Swails-I would like to ask the Senator, did
he not, in apublic argument, published in the
papers, pronounce an opinion that the muni-
Opal election law on certain points was ille
gal?
MIR. Corbin-I never did. expressed the
opinion that certain sections OF the election
law were unconstitutional. l will point out to
the Senate what portion of the constitution l
thought was and ls in antagonlsm with that
election law.
Alter the protest was sent into the Mayor
and City Council, he and they refused to pub
lish the returns. They refused to make decla-
lation of the election as required by the law.
1t will be seen that 1T IS the duty of the Aching
Mayor to make such declaration. He refu-cd,
and called tho City Council together, and said
to them: Here is protest; it is very grave
and solemn matter, matter OF tho gravest
importance to the City OF Charleston. Here is
the protest; let us go into an examination"
They did so, and spent two or three weeks in
the investigation. The result was when they
got through they said: "We declare the elec-
ton void"
A certain oath contained in The act had not
been admi iistered in all cases. A regstra-
tion had been made, and the election was fair
ly conducted, but it was ascertalned tLat the
managers had not administered the oath re-
quired by the third section OF the act. An
other ground was that some OF the managers
did not make their returns in sealed en-
velope. We said that part Of the law was sim,
ply directory, and that the oath required was
contrary to the constitution. Tho oath re-
quired The individual to swear that he had re-
sided in the county one year. The constitu-
ton says that the inGividusl must have re-
sided in the State one year, or have been
a resident since the adoption of the constitu-
tion. All that the voter vas to show, accord
ing to the constitution, was that he had resi-
ded in the county since it's adoptio.., and the
truth was the City Council had got completely
into the ha nds of the Philistines and took their
advice, and accordingly declared the election
void. The party rho felt themselves aggrieved
by this course appealed to the courts and OBJ
tanned writ OF na0ndamus, commanding the
Acting Board Of Aldermen of the City OF
Charleston to declare the election as the low
authorized and required them to do. The
court declared that the Eoard Of Aldermen had
no night to say the election was void. A
ndndd1nus was issued commanding
them to 60 on and declare the election,
which they finally did, just as set forth in this
bill. They could not withhold 1T any longer.
It they did, 1T would be in contempt of the
court, and they would havo to go to Jail. This
much was oxtorted from them. The act says
they shall declare the election, and their de-
cislon shall be binding upon all parties. They
have declared the election, and say tho pcr-
sons herein indicated received the highest
number Of votes. tho Supreme Court have
SAID that was equivalent to saying that these /,
persons were Gully elected. Nca, what hap
pens? After the declaration has been sQueez-
ed out of them, demand is NJ; de upon the
Actiug Mayor and Board of A.1trm for the
offices. They reply, notwl wltls.i ding, VIC de-
clare YOU arc elected, but we reuse to greyo
the Offices.
We then find ourselves il lris POSITION. We
have to agaiu appeal 10 the iour:s. There is
no doubt whatever but that Liu cla mauts were
elected. The Board OF Aldermen settled that
question. Their best advisers, on the other
side, .dmit that the question is practically set
tied as matter Of law, and that the parties in |
possession must surrender. But still the |
claimants have to resort to the Courts to drive
or smoke out the acting Board OF Aldermen T! |
What Is the result Why they can raise tech
nical objections, ccd the Courts are so organ
lied that Mr. Pillsoury and the Aldermen elect |
may be kept out of their Office whole year.
Now what we want to do by this act is to stop |
all delays from mere technicaGtles, and long, |
tiresome litigation. We simply want |
to deprive these gentlemen of the opportunity |
o. enjoying one half Of the term OF Office be-
longing to others and to keep the claimants |
out OF Office for that time.
II the case is brought up on quo ,1drranto,
it must 60 before the Circuit Court of Charles
ton. That court meets on the first Monday Of
next month. The criminal business is sufficient |
four weeks; there having been no courts held
there tor nearly year, consequently the 1aIlS
are crowded to overhowing. There are some |
two or thee hundrel per ons waiting to bo
tried. We cannot. therefore, probably get
hearing until March or April. Then the inal
settlement OF the question involved would go
10 tue Supreme Court, and it will be utterly |
impossible to get q decision OF the clsc IN that |
court before December next. In THIS opinion I |
I'm sustained by the Attorney General. II this
was lot the case. would much prefer tho
courts compel these gentlemen to racate the |
tl,, l,.,i,1 a