The Portland daily press., 1876-11-27
The South Carolina Case.

In making up judgment on the action of
the South Carolina returning board it is nec-
essary to bear in mind certain facts in regard
to the two counties which have been thrown
out. According to the census of 1870 Edge
held has population of $4,000, of which 25,-
600 are colored and 1900 white. In the
elections since 1870 the vote Of the county
has been as follows; 1870, for Governor, Re.
publican 4,547, Democratic 3,704; 1872, for
President, Republican $3.50, Democratic
l,113; 1874, for Governor, Republican $500,
Democratic 1900. The Democrats now
claim majority of 5000. Edgefeld is the
county where the notorious Gen. M. G. But
Ter and his gang amused themselves by shoot
ing negroes and where it is extremely i'm
probable that black men could be coaxed to
vote the Democratic ticket. The record of
Laurens county is much the same. 1t has
population of 22,50O, of which $4,000 are
black. In the elections since 1870 it has ney-
er given less than thousand Republican ma
jority. 1t has now given more than a thou
sand Democratic majority.
The fraud and intimidation practced in
these counties were so evident that the board
was justified, if it had the legal power to
throw them out. But when the board met it
found itself confronted by the supreme court,
body which has by some means been cap
tured by the Democrats. The presiding JUS
tice is ex-Gov. Moses, a man whose reputa-
ton is anything but good, and who is bitterly
opposed to Gov. Chamberlain because the
Governor refused to confirm the appoint
ment of the Junior Moses, whose reputation
is if possible worse than that of his fathers,
to the bench.
Before the board began to canvass the re-
turns the court informed it that its duties
were purely ministerial, and that it must re-
tura the votes as cast, without inquiry as to
fraud. This was done, and the returns
showed the choice of the Hayes electors.
Then the court, finding that the returns did
not agree with Democratic expectations,
called upon The board to show cause why it
should not exercise judicial functions and go
back of the returns for electors, at the same
time prohibiting the board from exercising
JouiNioi AuhSbiOho III SdutaoSluS luc NOtcS lOk
state officers. That is, the court, finding
that the prima facia returns elected
Democratic governor and legislature,
forbade the board to inquire into their valid
ity so far as state officers were concerned;
and finding that the prima facie returns
elected Hayes electors, instructed the board
TO inquire into the validity of these same
returns so far as electors were concerned.
To give the state to Hampton the court made
one rule, and to give it to Tilden made an
exactly contrary rule, and both upon the
same day.
To these unfair and contradictory rulings
the board objected, and concluded to follow
out its own opinions. So it finished the
business before and adjourned on the date
fixed by law. The last rulings of the court
had not been received when the adjournment
was had. These are the facts in the South
Carolina case. Whether the board was
guilty of technical violations of law is
mooted question. There are grave doubts of
the assumed authority of the court over its
action. There is doubt if the board had legal
right to prolong its session beyond the date
established by law in order to await con-
templated but not achieved action of the
court. Whether or not the board was en-
titled to the benefit of these doubts is ques-
tion for the lawyers to decide. There is no
question that its action was in accordance
with common sense, however much it may
have disregarded technicalities. 1t defeated
an unjust project of the supreme court,
whether by legal or illegal means remains TO
be seen.