The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-03-04
THE MUNICIPIL ELECTION.

tho Office of Mayor, because the law unoer
which be was elected referred the scrutiny OF
that election 70 special tribunal, AMI gave to
that body the authority to make bin dina g
cision, after invcsti gazing the claim OF the
claimants and examining the returns Of the
managers with the ballots.
Furthermore, to this tribunal Pillsbury has
submitted his claim for the Office of Mayor,
and the Aldermen upon his ticket have sub
mitted their claim for the offices OF Aldermen,
respectively, as well upon the law as upon the
facts, claiming to have received the highest
number Of legal votes; and this tribunal, so
appointed by law, and to which the claimants
have resorted and voluntarily submitted their
claim, has declared, as its decision and finding
that Gilbert PilIsbury and the parties claiming
as Aldermen with him, did not receive the
highest number Of legal votes; and the law
says ''their decision shall be binding upon Tic
parties
The same tribunal have also declared that
no persons have been duly elected according
to law.
The decision and finding OF this tribunal
stands unreversel, aud consequently, until
another election, tte incumbents must hold ouer'
They must hold over. not for til cir own sake,
but for the public good Of preserving the gov
ernment of the city.
If tho Managers of Election had united in
making return in favor of Plsbury and his
Aldermen, and that return had been disputed,
pending the scrutiny the claimants might be
said to have prin,a Jdcie title to the Offices
Claimed; but, after scrutiny had and decision
against their claim, this presumption in their
favor is gone, because it has been rendered
legally certain that said claimants, of all mon,
have no title to tie Offices in question.
If the ircumbents Mayor Clark and the
Acting Board of Aldermen-could be weak
enough to vacate their Offices, they might
throw the corporation into chaos or dissolu-
tion for want of officers; but they certainly, by
such action. would not and could not lawfully
seat Mr.. Pillsbury and his ticket.
And if the iEcumbents should, through
weakness or from other motives, so vscate
their Offices, Mr.. Pillsbury and his ticket could
oficcs of Mayor and Aldermen Of the City of
Charleston, without being guilty OF usurpation.
Any other set of men in the City of Charleston
might seize upon said Offices with equal right,
or show right. AIR. Pilsbury and his ticket
have not even ''color of title, by election" to
sustain them, if t.ey should succeed now in
intrudng themselves into the Offices. Their
entry, under legislative action in Colum bia,
would carry with it proof Of want OF title in
them, by election, which would vtlate their
proceedings and acts.
So it is that Mayor Clark and tie Acting
Aldermen, by retaining the Offices of which
they arc incumbents, do not obstruct Mr..
Pllsbury and his ticket. 1HE LAW stands
IN his and 0teir ,oay, because tho finding of
the law stands recorded against them.
But, again, suppose Mayor Clark and the
Acting Board of Aldermen Were out of the way
altogether, and Mr.. Pillsbury and the other
claimants with him had been suffered, ,oithoM
resistance, to usurp the Offices of Mayor and
Aldermen, could they sustain themselves
No tax bill, passed by them, or other act
whose validity depends on their being the
ta,Cful officers of the corporation, would be
valid. Hnotousted of their usurped places by
an indignant community, their power would be
utterly naught, for the want OF that acquies-
cence in their sathority which would be essen
tlal to its efficacy. Their government would
be powerless.
On the other hand, upon what foundation, in
the face of MIR. Corbin's bill, does the title of
Mayor Clark and the Acting Board Of Aldermen
rest The answer is, they are The incunsbents.
Kent, in his commentaries, lays down the
doctrine in these words: "Iu the case Of pub
lie officers. who are such de Jac'o, acting under
color OF Office by al, election or appointment
not strictly legal, or without having qualified
themselves by the requisite tests, or by
holding over after the period prescribed tor
q now appointment, as In the case OF sheritfs,
constables, &C., their acLs are held valid as re-
spects the rights OF third persons who have an
interest in them. and as concerns the pubic in
order to prevent failure OF justice" e Kent,
259.)
Iu order, therefore, "to recent q future Of
justic5" or OF govornm cnt. Mayor Clark and his
Board OF Aldermen ".s public officers, who
are such de .tdct0. a;ting under col~r oil Office"
by appointment, irrespective OF Legislative con-
fruation or attempted Legislative motion.
are entitled, by law, to exercise their offices
until another election is held under tho char
ter OF the city, ard their acts will DC legally
valid aud b.ndiug. Tier tax blll can be Gu
forced.
They hold as incumbents, filling Offices which
would be vacant uu .ess they continued to bold
until another election. Only officers duly
elected cau lawfully displace them. Lcgas'd-
Gue appotntecs cannot oust them. The right
C ,oUs, It's own officers is franchise vested in
the col poraton hey ond the roach OF the action
of the State Legislature. LEX.