The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-03-26
THE CHARLESTON ELECTION.
Under tho Writ or Quo
WarrantO
FIR IT DAY

FIRST DAY.
The hearing Of the arguments in the matter of
the writ Of quo warranto sued out by Gilbert Pisbury
and 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 60 the quo
'oarrdno. alleged by the counsel for the Mayor and
Aldermen to be pending in the Supreme Court The
counsel for Mr.. Pillsbury admitted that order of
discontinuance made by the court, and contend
ed that the discontinuance by the REALTORS in open
court, was sufficient without an order The counsel
on the other side contended that without motion
made and order of court, there could be no valid
disoontinuance.
Mr. Corbn, counsel for Mr.. Pilsbury and the
claimants, read argument in reply to the pleas of
the Acting Mayor and Aldermen. He argued that
the whole resolved itself into two quesions l.
Whether Gilbert Pillsbury and others received the
largest number of votes for Mayor and Aldermen Of
Charleston. :. Whether the act to confirm and make
valid the election was indeed law. The hrst point
was admitted, when it was acknowledged that the
Acting Board OF Aldermen did declare the election
which at first they refused to do 80 that Ptllsbury
and others were brought within the section of the
State Constitution which declares that in election
the persons receiving the largest number of votes
shall be elected. Then ceassd the tenure of the Act
ing Mayor and Aldermen, and because they refused
to 90 out, the Legislature passed the validating act
Any defect that there might have been was made
good by that act That act was proper exercise of
the legislative power. The powers of corporation
are not In the nature Of contra t. and contract
was violated by 1t. 1t was not retrospective but
prospective. In conclusion, he said that it was o
thing unprecedented in this State the United
States. for the Acting Mayor and Aldermen to con-
finue IN in face oft hot ln~u hiatt
usurped 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 people,
or to diminish in any way those sacred rights which
are guaranteed and sustained alike by the oonstitu-
ton of this State and Of the United States and by
the fundamental principles which the basis OF
all civil law. He denied that the Legislature could
without previously repeating the charter thrust in
it's hand and touch of the franchises which are
the property of the corporation and corporators Mr.
Barker read the sections of the Constitution Of the
State which supported his view that the Legislature
had not the right to abrogae the charter Of the city,
and argued that If the claimants could get possess
sion fthe Offices of Mayor and Aldermen tn exer-
else of power would be illegal and an usurpation.
After showing what was understood by the words
Office and franchise, he contended that al
though under the original charter there
might have been no contract between the
corporation and the Legislature, there had been
amendments and extensions of power which m Ike
the charter as 1t stands contract which cannot be
violated. The city had been authorized to contract
a debt to issue bonds, had become a corporator of
corporations outside Of the State; it had made con-
tracts with its creditors, and its right of retaining
Its corporate sf for the protection of its creditors
and tor Its own interest for sueing and being sued
the Legislature could not abrogate The corpora
tton aud corporators were 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 a
contractr Giving city the power to enter into
such contracts puts 1t in the position of private
corporation, and it is no longer within the power of
the Legislature to meddle with infricge upon it's
chartered rights and privileges. 1t would be mon.
strous tyranny to take away the corporate franchises
while the property of the corporators still remain
ed bound under the acts of incorporation. But
even If the charter could be repealed, could the
Legislature still do what they pleasedP Under tho
Constitution of the State and of the United States
the citizens Of Charleston had the undoubted .xht
of choosing their Mayor Only the Mayor ohnaon
by them, and no other, can DO mayor, and he must
be elected under the law previously existing. Now
the validating act" declares in the preamble that
the election was not according to laws was there
FORE to make valid and legal what was Invalid and
egai was in reality, act to deprive tho city OF
the right Of selfgovernment to deprive the people
ofthe right Of choosing their officers under pre-ex-
listing laws, to which they were entitled under the
constitution. The Mayor and Aldermen who were
not chosen by the people according law could not
be made Mayor and Aldermen by one act of the Leg.
islature for 1t was of the vested rights of the
citizens to have only the Mayor and Aldermen whom
they had elected. II there was any defect In the
title by which the Acting Mayor and Aldermen
continued to hold office until their duly elected
successors came it was made good by the "vsl-
cognized them In their official capacities. ADMIT
ting, however. but only for argument. that the Le
gslature has the right to repeal the charter it can
not without repeating The charter deprive the citt
zens OF their right to u their Offices with persons
duly elected To take back the charter of public
corporation It must be expressly taken back and no
one privilege or right of any citizen under such
charter can be taken away without such repeal. 1t
cannot be donc by special act in favor of Plsbury
or any other individual The citizens have the right
to have their Mayor elected according to law unless
so much Of the charter is repealed and no Legsls.
ture can take up and thrust in man not so elected
Even If Mayor Clark were to resign the vacancy in
the Office would be great obstacle in the way of
Pillsbury as If Mr.. Clarkh been duly elected Re-
move Mr. Clark, the de Jacto officer. and the Of
Ace is vacant and the vacancy must be filed
by an officer elected according to law. Even II
Mayor Clark is ousted, the vacant ONCE will pro.
tecs itself and the franchises Of the citizens against
any intrusion by any persons not duly elected
There is no duly elected person to fill the vacancy
and there must be new election. The charter says
so. the constitution says so, the Fourteenth amend.
ment to the United States Constitution says sol
(Great sensation and low murmurs among the color.
ed people.) Mr.. Barker then showed the alleged in
correctness Of the assumption by counsel on the
other side, that Pillsbury admit ted by tho Act
ing Board Of Aldermen to have been elected with
is associates All that the claimants wanted when
they went before the supreme Court was to have o
declaration upon which they might found their ar.
pication for the writ of qso aUayranto AZ soon az