, 1876-12-18


Tho clcaregt and most succi1lct statement
OF the powers and duties Of the Returning
Boards, and ono that eGectually clcars up the
muddIe that llas been made about tho action
Of tho Returning 1}oards Of Louisiana, South
Carolina, and Florida, is that mado by Judge
BoSD, OF tho United States District Court, in
the South Carolina case. This arose upon
the application Of the members Of the 1sc-
turning Board of TINT State for rclcnse upon
ha6eas corpus from thoir imprisonment for
contempt by tho Supreme Court Of South
Carolina. The alleged contempt consisted
in the refusal of tho Board TO obey writ Of
naandamus issued by tllo Stato Court CON-
mand;ng them, In substance, to limit their
canyass Of tho vote to count Of tho entire
returns as made by tho local election officers
to tho County Boards. The rcnl point pro-
sented was Us to the power Of tho Returning
BOARD to not merely count, but TO canvass, the
retnrns, deciding a'l' coptests and charges Of
fraud aud irregularity. If, under tho law, the
Returning Board was vested with tl,atpower
then tho State Court had no Jurisdiction to
interfere with the Board In the exorcise Of
that power. And if tho State Court had not
jurisdiction, Of course tic Board oould not
DO committed for contempt in disoboying the
,nnndate of the State Court, by which TINT
tribunal assumed to direct how tho canvass
should be made.
Tho Constitution Of South Carolina, in this
regard modelled after that Of tho United
Statcs and following those Of several Suites,
wit ovnnr+tpy, hoffn,,n
and establishes tho three coordinate depart
ments Of government, thu legislative, execu-
tive, and judicial. With reference to this
distribution Of governmental powers, tho
Soutl, Ccro.ina Constitution, which is citod
by Jusagu BOND, provides TINT "The legisla-
tive, executive, aud judicial powers Of the
Government shall bo Aforovcr separate nnl
distinct from each ostcr"i and with rcfer-
ence to tho Supreme Court out Of which the
,aaatlamus issued, it is provided tho Court
"shall have power to Issue writs Of manaa-
mas. . md such other original and
renedial writs IN n'aH Dc necessary to gire it q
general lsupe,ciaosy control oeer ill otter courts
OF this State.",
Tho Canrasslng Doanl clearly ,was not MI
"other court," SO that whether by any trick
Of words tic powors confded to it might
DO termed "julicial WAS wholly inma.
terial. And it is equally clear TINT tho Can
vassiug 1'oarl ii o part Of the Executive De-
partnent Of the State, which facts alone
scem to settle tho whole question OF iuris.
diction by establishing tho Independence Of
the Boaril from my control or supervision
by the Court.
But no sucl, str;et construction is ncccs-
gory to determine the question ns TO the
rowers of tho Board, Dy tho we'll settled
priucjplca of law loid down by tho Supremo
Court Of the United StateB in tl1e caso Of
Ga1sEa ys. TuoMpsox Il WALLACE noports,
at7,. md nffirmotl nv aocis,ons of tho Sn.
nrcmo Courts Of nil tho States in whjcl, tho
n,cat,on hat arison. thu ,ow "a.
Tint, 7, II nnpeoY TIM, TIM oet whcr Inn f,o,,, :.
asked to cop,pel .ho officer Of The Executive us.
parttnent OF sheGoycrnmcns to DO be purely min
istcrlal tho Court having 1urlsdieton tn issuc thu
WI, VI maAaa; 'aay @ sure, r. sns e1esaas'o u'
In lono lv tho cxecutiy. o1cer bo nut src,y min.
Istcrsal, hut discretionary, oE one about which he
IL TO exercise h!s jules1e"t, Court cannot, BY
,"a""a"uf ' ae' maeeny apon tae on'eet anu su!ae
,r. .omml,,"J to II. r,,, IN III, a.,,".rv
ot Official duty.
Now, by the statute Of South Carolina, us
by tic statutcs uf EIorida mud Louisiana, tho
Returning board was established for the
very purpose 1T exercising, a discretionary
,ower. Tho soutl, Gsroli.,a statute provides
that, upon tho returns, tho Hoard sl,oll tl.ou
| >:x,cccl to determine end tceIcro ,yhot nnr,
song l,.yo boe,,. ky tho rrcatcst number ot
yo:os, ,1u,y elected to such Offices or either
| -; ~, .r; -. 4, 4, 1. ~ 4. !.