The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-10-30

conduct Of
| The speaker here asked for the decision,
I and it having been handed to him, he seemed
struck with another idea, and branched of.
He continued:1
The decision disposed of another OF the posi-
tons assumed by the respondents In the last
clause of section of the return, 1t is alleged
that the question of election is public one,
and no individuals, excepting candidates. can
complain, but the attorney-general Is the pro-
per person to institute the proceedings, or they
should, at least, be by his consent. In the
case of the State ex rel. Gilbert Pillsbury vs.
Mayor Clark and board, the attorney-general
did not make the complaint.
"He was counsel, perhaps" suggested MI.
Campbell, land the return expressly makes
an exception in favor of the candidates. elect,
who may make the complaint 1T they ..claim
the Office"
This suggestion, mildly and kindly put, stag
gered the counsel in his speech, and he grace
fully gave up the point and proceeded:
The respondents charge that the REALTORS
have proceeded by complaint, which is Illegal
in this case. 1t is petition, and should be SO
regarded, as 1t was on this ground that no
summonses were Issued. Unfortunately there
was an error as to the date when the protest
was filed, which was not discovered until the
papers were served, and which seemed to Of
fer reasonable pretext on which to ask that
the writ of mandamus be dissolved. 1t was
stated In the writ that the persons aggrleved
got out their protest and filed the same on the
9Th OF August. This was mistake; the pro-
| test was not filed until q month later. This
error affords the respondents an op-
portunlty of presenting affidavits to show
that there was quorum present at
two meetings of Council. He would
protest, Notwithstanding earnest endeavors,
there was not only no quorum, but this was
owing to the wllful and deliberate act OF GER
| tain individual members to prevent quorum.
Three parties who were absent during several
of the last meetings fail to account. for their
absence. On the announcement of the elec-
ton the relators, not being content, caused to
be drawn up and filed their protest, charging
the managers with Illegal conduct. 1t was
signed by citizens to the number Of three hun
dred, and filed on the 9Th Of August, says the
complaint, and he would frankly admit that it
should be the 9Th of September, as certified to
him by the clerk when the complaint was be-
ing drawn.
Colonel Brewn. "Produce It, Show US the
certificate"
After painful search of papers and racking
OF the memory, the certificate could not be
found, and counsel supposed It had been left at
his office among some other papers.
Judge Graham relieved the counsel by
remarklng that II would be impossible for the
court to decide to compel the acting board to
entertain the protest until he knew what the
grounds were upon which 1t rested.
Governor Magrath. Your Honor, we have
asked for the protest and it should be furnished
u.s."
Judge Graham. It may be that the grounds
are such as in the opinion Of the court are
unfit for the board to decide upon. From the
afidavits now before the court, 1t rules that no
protest has ever been filed. The clerk has not
got 1t, 1t has never been In court. The de-
PENDANTS have been denied the sight or copy
of It. There is no protest. 1t Is impossible
for the court to decide this case until it sees
the protest and examines the grounds upon
which 1t Is based.
Mr.. Worthlngton said the protest had been
filed and the complaint states the grounds.
Since the time of filing 1t, a quorum has been
purposey avoided. Ii the protest was before
your Honor 1t would show nothing more than
can be got out OF the complaint Of the rela-
tors. He did not know how business was
done in Charleston, and In whose hands the
protest was. II was not on file, because there
had been no board to receive and consider it.
There was no denying that the managers had
prepared their return in due time, as author
lied by the act, and sent the same to the
Mayor, who issued his proclamation
Governor Magrath rose, aud, asking leave
of counsel to interrupt him, inquired:
lst. Does the counsel maintain that the act
ing Board OF Aldermen have the power to de-
clare the election void or do anything else
than examine the ballots and declare the re-
suit? AS this question must of necessity be
answered in the negative, he would ask
4
I'd. Are any circumstances whatever pre-.
sented to the notice of the court to induce 1t
to order further scrutiny In the matter OF
this election By u writ of mandamus, which is
never granted unless there Is denial of some
important right, or unless some great good Is
to be effected? The answer would reduce the
argument to single point.
Mr.. Worthington said that this brought the
question back to the decision OF Justice Will
lard. The Supreme Court had decided upon
the improperly of investing board OF alder
men with Judicial power to decide upon their
own continuance In office. The decision did
not deny that the board might 60 on enter
tanning the protest aud count the ballots.
General Simons. Your Honor says rightly.
we think, that without protest there Is no
question. read from the complaint
sth. That your relators have at all times,
since the submission of their said protest,
earnestly desired to have action thereupon by
| the said acting Board Of Aldermen. and 10
have the opportunity afforded to your REALTORS
| to present to said board the ground upon
which your REALTORS contest the election, &c.
| That your REALTORS have repeatedly brought the
| matter of the said protest to the attention OF
| the acting Mayor, aud to the attention OF indi-
vdual members of the acting Board OF Alder
men, &c.