The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-01-09
THE Contested ELECTION.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
Opinion OF Justices willard and Hogc,
and Separate Opinion OF Chief
Justice Moses.

lard would deliver the opinion of the court in
the case Of Gilbert Pillsbury and others against
the Acting Beard of Aldermen of the City oil
Charleston.
Judge Willard then delivered the opinion oi
the court, at the conclusion of which reading
the Chief Justice announced that Mr.. Justice
Hoge concurred in that opinion.
It is believed that the peremptory writ OF
,namdamus win issue Immediately.
The following is the opinion Of the court:
Acting Board of Aldermen of the City Of Charles
ton. Supreme Court November Term, 1853 Mo.
ton for Peremptory Mantemus.
OPINION.
elected to fill the respective offices Of Mayor
and Aldermen Of the City Of Charleston, at an
election held on the 10th day OF November last,
under the act ito provide for the election Of
the officers of the Incorporated cities and
towns OF the State Of South Carolina" ratified
September 25, 1868. Especial session, 1868. p.
1867 They allcge that said election hos been
contested, con as t. to majority OF the persons 70
with the ballots, were examined, and the case
Investigated by the respondents, who there
upon did declare as fol,ws: "The said board
do declare that there has been no legal
have been duly elected to tho Office
Of Mayor and Aldermen of the City of
Charleston at said election. Realtors claim
that by law respondents are bound to declare
the results of the election, and had no authori-
ty to declare it void; that they have demanded
OF the respondents compliance with theirslegal
duty. which has been refused. They pray writ
of neandaneus to compel respondents to per-
form their legal duty in the premises.
An alternative writ issued accordingly, COM
manding the respondents to declare said cleo
tion and allow said relators to enter upon their
several and respective Offices, or that they ap-
pear and show cause for their refusal 80 to do.
Respondents have returned to said writ two
grounds Of noncompliance. Herewith. The
first is, that in virtue Of authority vested in
adjudged said election to be illegal and void:
and that such decision is final and conclu-
sive, and binding on all parties. The second
is, that illegalities and informalities were COM
mitted at such election, and in the returns
thereof, and that fraudulent votes were cast
in excess Of the majorities appearing in behalf
OF the relators, and they contend that this
c9prt, If not bound by the decision made by
tlA respondents. must from the facts arrive at
tiSBgsame conclasion, namely, that the election
is Illegal and void. 80 + ~
AS TO the matters embraced in the first
the second ground, have moved to strike out
that portion OF the return as immaterial and
irrelevant. The question for decision arises
on the construction Of the following clause Of
is as follows: "The Managers Of Elections
shall decide contested cases, subject to the
ultimate decision OF the Board Of Aldermen
or Wardens when organized, except when
voted for are contested. or the managers
are charged with illegal conduct, in which case
the returns, together with the ballots, shall be
examined. and the case investigated by the Act-
election, and their decision shall be binding
upon all PARTIES" 1t appears that the elections
Of "a majority OF the persons voted for" are
contested, and also that '1llegal conduct" was
oh oo6o oiv,cf t6o Dl,A
is whether the determination and decision Of
the Acting Board is in conformity with and in
full discharge Of their duty in the premises.
Two acts are required OF them: Fsrs'. To ex-
Second To declare the election. The FIRST has
been performed, and no question is made
about it. The second is the subject Of the
present contest.
dents by the terms under which they
ave delegated, aHd no difficulty either
Of construction or Interpretation presents
itself: An election is the joint act of
all legally qualified electors choosing to
participate in it. 1t consists OF the express SION
OF choice as to the matter acted upon, which
is, in legal. consideration, secret act OF the
elector. and declaration Of the result Of sach
the election Is held, which is the act OF the
officers conducting the election. The officers
performing this duty are here termed mana
gers. According to the present law, their de-
cisiecs may be reviewed in some cases by the
new board OF aldermen or wardens, and III
others before the old board. In the present
case, the old board acts. The declaration pre-.
supposes q scrutiny Of the votes, and is COM
pleted by return setting forth the whole num-
ber OF votes given for each candidate, and
when there has been choice, in conformity to
law, by furnishing the prevailing candidate
with suitable evidence Of his election. The
foregoing is the general nature OF the duty
imposed upon the respondents by the terms Of
the statute, and If it is to be regarded as the
Limit Of their powers, it ls evident that they
have not acted in strict conformity Herewith;
on the contrary, while admitting the existence
of an eleetion in fact, they refuse to declare
the same, alleging as ,ke ground therefor that
it was illegal and void.
The respondents claim that by proper con-
struction of the statute, in connection with
the former election laws, 1t will appear that
they have moro enlarged powers, and are cem-
petent to adjudge the illegatty Of the election.
1t ia unquestiOnably true that, under the for
mer election laws, the mana GERS Of elections
possessed, by the express terms of the law,
such powers as are here contended for; but 1t
is not clear how that can assist the respondents.
who act under much more restricted grant
Of authority. The powers in question are the
creatures Of the statute, and we are not OF lib
erty to Gull from statutes passed at different
periods and under widely varying circumstan-
symmetry.- If the terms of the statute are TO
be enlarged 1t must be in conformity with the
principles governing legal construction, and
because something isY imputed in those terms
by necessary, or. ct the least, by o reasona-
BILE implication. That which is drawn after
the statute by a necessary implication is as
much q part oft as that which is expressed
in terms. Where subject matter is named
all things directly appertatning to it are includ-
ed by necessary implication. 81. WheIe an act is
required to be performed, whatever constitutes
necessary or ordinary InSaas to It's perform-
tion in all these cases is. not whether the mat
Ter Of implication will add to tho value and Of
fciency OF what is conferred in terms, but
whether without 1t the statute wall be wholly
or in part imperative. Applying these tests
to the case In hand, we have no difficulty Ia
discovering That the powers granted and those
sought to be addsd by way Of implication are
ed or dependent, and cannot be united on any
principle of necessary implication. One is adj
nninistrative and the other judicial, and, there