The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1874-10-24
COLUMBIA,-S.. C..
saturday Morning. October "a, 1874.
Secretary OF State iaayhs Ia New
and CSBSoro.s Role.

Secretary OF State iasyhs &. a New
and 5sHEoro:s Role.
At late hour last evening, We learnt
that Secretary Of State Hayne had re-.
fused 70 sign the commissions Of the
Commissioners of Election appointed
by the Governor. We think Mr..
Hayne ill-advised in this matter, and
assumes responsibility which is pain.
full to contemplate, and which may en-
tail consequences of the most weiEhty
and fearful character. We have not
had time to examine tho statutes
which define his duties and responsi-
bilities, but We remember none which
confer upon him such power as he
now is said to claim. What ground he
takes we have not heard, but it seems
to us that there is none upon which he
can stand securely. Possibly, he
thinks that the appointments just
made are in violation Of the require
ment that Commissioners of Election
shall be appointed sixty days prior to
the election. II that were so, it. is
hardly Mr.. Haynes business to take
exception to it. He is merely minis
terial officer, keeping the records and
furnishing necessary evidence OF mp.
pointments, SO. As we understand
it, the Commissioners were appointed
regularly, and ut the proper time. Up
so this date, no action has been taken
which looks to questioning their strict
validity. Changes have been made, of
course, but the removal Of an officer
and the appointment of successor are
;ncidemtal 10 the original appointn snte,
and carry it's date 30 as to save th Q
statute. The intention of the Legsla-
tnre always rules in interpreting Ella.
tates, and the intentions of The Legis-
'ature in requiring the appointment ts
ot election commissioners to be made
sixty days before the election is, mani
Costly, to give full information to the
public. This cannot be questioned.
5nt to deduce from this requirement
the enormous consequence that the ap
pointee could not be removed ut all,
even for good .use, would be in direct
violation OF the intention OF the Legis-
iature. and, indeed, in absolute CONTRA
diction to common sense.
To contend that the consequence OF
the requirement is the sole, absolute
right Of the appointee to the function,
you'd result in the most monstrous
and absurd oonolus ions. One of these
conclusions is. that il an epidemic
:shouid kill all three Commissioners for
any County within the time required,
then there could be no election in that
sCcanty. The people Of the County.
thus visited by nature, would. be de,
prived of q voice in the choice OF every
State officer, and would be without
representation in the Legislature.
How, then, could they be taxed con-
.sissen.ly with our institutions? 4
hundred equally monstrous oonclu.
aions -ould follow such mone!roaa
proposition. The only sensible inter-
pretation of the statute 10, that the re-
moval aud the new appoint ment are
'ncideafs Of the original appointment,
and refer back to its date. 80 as to
bring them within the law.
In the next place. there is no spe-
:ial requirement in the statute that the
Secretary OF State shall oountersign
these commissions, nor il there any
general statute requiring that the SEQ.
rotary of State shall countersign any
cc::.:ss;oas g. ell. The ssal CT the
State is merely evidentiary. and is not
necessary to render any public instru-
mens valid. unless by special enact.
ment to that effect. Is it possible that
the entire machinery of the Govern.
ment is at the mercy OF single officer,
to move, or to be checked entirely, at
MS uncontrolled will, or even whim?
It follows conclusively that under the
statute. all that is necessary to render
these commissions valid is The SIGNATURE
4| the Gooernor. The custom of seal.
ing all commissions is, at the utmost.