Litchfield enquirer., 1876-11-30
The South Carolina Returning
 Board.

' edge regarding the powers of courts over boards of canvassers and such conflict of legal opinion upon the regent action of ;he South Carolina Supreme court in punishing the returning board of that state. that NC have taken some trouble. to present our readers with the general principles of law on the subject, and to siftthe facts out of the monstrous heap of rubbish formed by the newspaper re- ports of this case. In regard to the pow CTS of courts over boards of canvassers, we quote the following from ~High's Ex- traordinary Legal Remedies,' recent standard work on the branch of law in question: c
 SECTION 55. Notwithstanding the rule tenying relief by mandamas to compel admission to disputed office, or to de- ermine the title thereto, there are certain incidents connected with the question of title and election to public offices, which from their nature involve the exercise of merely ministerial powers, and are hence properly subject to control by maonda- nus. Among these incidents are the can- sassing of election returns, the issuing of certificates of election to the persons en- titled thereto, and the issuing of com mission to claimant duly elected. In all .nese cases we shall find no difficulty in arriving at correct result by keeping constantly in view the distinction hereto fore alluded to between duties of purely ministerial nature involving the exei else f no official discretion, and duties quasi IndIclal ln their nature and calling for the -xercise of reasonable degfee of official fragment and discretion.
 SEC. 56. And, m the first place, as re- yards the duties of canvassing votes cast tt an election and of making a return of the person elected. while it is doubtless true that such duties partake of a quasi judicial nature, as far as concerns the de- rrmination of whether the papers re ;elved by the canvassers and purporting be election returns, are in fact such re- urns, and are genuine and intelligible, md substantially authenticated as requir d by law, yet beyond these preliminary questions the duties of canvassers are re sarded as chiefly ministerial. These questions being determined, the remain az duties of such canvassers in deciding sho IS elected are merely mechanical or ministerial. involving simply the labor of counting the votes returned and deter mining who has received the highest num- Der. Wherever, therefore, such canvas sers have neglected or refused to perform his duty. or have only performed it in part, and have neglected to examine or include all the returns presented to them, they may be compelled by mandamus to proceed with the performance of their iutu Ioouinn oil of ,,oI;1;k~, of the election to be determined by the tribunals provided by law for that pur- pose. For example, where it is alleged that state board of canvassers of cleo tions have neglected and still neglect to canvass the votes returned upon an cleo tion for governor and to determine and to certify in the manner prescribed by law who has been elected to the office, sufi- .ient cause has been shown for issuing the alternative writ But in proceedings Dy mandamus to compel a board of can- Vassers to perform their official duties, allegations of fraud and bribery in the lection are not proper subject for the consideration of the court
 SEC. 57. It is to be borne in mind, how ever, that the general rule as laid down ln the preceding section applies only to cases where the functions of the canvas sers are strictly ministerial in their nature md where, as IS sometimes the case, the powers of such officers are extended to and cover the decision of questions stricU- " judicial Ill their nature, the rule has no application. Thus, where boards of can- vassers are empowered with the exercise )t judicial functions over the whole ques- ton of the election, being authorized not outy to perform tho ordinary duties of ctnvassers, but also to hear and deter mine all contested elections, and no ap- ,eal lies from their decision, the courts will refuse to interfere by mandamus, with the exercise of their discretion or judgment, and will regard their decision IS final and conclusive.-Pages 46-48.
 The law yegarding the powers of courts over boards of canvassers being thus clearly statel, the next question that arises is regarding the powers given it's board of State Canvassers by the laws of South Carolina. The laws regarding ctions in that state empower the gov e"nor to appoint three managers" for @ ,ch precinct. These managers make re- turns to county commissioners, also ap- ! pointed by the governor These con- ' nlssioners canvass the precinct returns, l certify to their correctness, and return them to the State Board of Canvassers ! which consists of five state officers the Attorney General, Treasurer, Comp troller, Inspector General, and Secretary of State. The statute prescrlbes the fol. lowing duties for this board:
 The board shall, upon the certified COD les of the statements made by the boards
 If county canvassers, proceed to make a statement of the whole number of votes l gwen at such election for the various of- ticers and for each of them voted for,
 distinguishing the several counties in which they were They shall certify such statements to be correct, aud subscribe the same with their proper names.
 Upon such statement they shall then proceed to determine and declare what persons have been by the greatest num-
 Der of votes duly elected to such offices
 or either of them They shall have pow CT, and it IS made thelr duty, to decide
 .ll cases under protest or contest that
 may arise where the power to do so does
 uot by the Constitution reside in some
 'ther body.
 By the constitution of South Carolina cases of contest regarding the election oi governor are given to the legislature; and, as regards members of the legislature, the constitution also provides that each
 House shall judge of the election returns and qualifications.of it's own members. l Such being the power Of courts over
 boards of canvassers. and the laws and constitution of South Carolina regarding
 their state board of canvassers. it would
 seem to be clear that. as regards the eiec-
 tion of governor and members of legisla
 ture, they have only ministerial" anG
 not Judicial powers. As regards tn.
 rest of the state officers and presidentia
 electors, it would appear that the board