Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1876-11-28
From the New York Tribune.
South Carolina.

On the fece of the returns, there was a
majority for republican electors, for dem
ocralic minor State officers, and for dem
ocratic members of the Legislature by
whom the votes for Governor and Lieu
tenau,-Governor are canvassed. The SUI
preme Court, having elected dis Informs
tipu. manifested its intention to order, IN
mos, extraordinary disregard OF legal rules
mr. common sense. that the Canyas>ing
Board had no power whatever 10 90 be-
hind the returns as TO members OF The
Legislature and State officers, but must
90 behind the returns as to electors. 1t
the board possesses judicial powers at all,
as the law of South Carolina and the prac-
tice for years lead US to suppose, it pos
sesses those powers alike as to members
of the Legislature and Presidential cleo
tors. 1t was the belief Of the board, based
upon evidence officially brought before it
according to law, that there had been no
legal election in Two counties, and 1t had
SO reported TO the court. Omi ting re-
turns from those counties gave a ma orty
to the republicans. not only for electors,
but for State officers and members Of the
Legislature. The court therefore could
serve democratic purposes in one way
only-by denying to the board any judi
cial power hitherto exercised in respect
to returns for legislators, and at the same
time asserting that the board had power.
and that it was its duty in respect to cleo
tors. to examine the correctness Of the
county returns, but not 10 consider wheth-
er there had been legal election in any
county. This position. all fair men must
admit, seems on its face not only incon-
sistent and untenable, but so nagrantly
unreasonable as to afford strong proof OF
partisan purpose.
It must be remembered that two Of the
three judges of this court had thoroughly
identified themselves with the democratic
party during the recent campaign by pub
lished letters. Both had strong personal
hostility to Gov. Chamberlain, and the
name of Moses has become notorious in
South Carolina politics. 1t is scarcely
necessary TO refer 10 the manly and hon
orable refusal of the Governor to give a
commission as Judge TO the infamous per-
son who happens be son of the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court. Hatred
of the Governor brought majority of the
court over to the democrats, and it must
be confessed that there was little reason
10 expect strict justice from such a court.
But the question is not whether the court
deserved confidence, but whether the ac-
tion of the board was according to law
and in conformity with the real will of
the people.
Respecting the electors, there is little
room to doubt, first, that majority of all
those who voted In South Carolina voted
for Hayes, as the returns show. and sec
ond :, that in at least two counties great
wrongs were committed by the democrats,
by which the. votes of many men from
Georgia were admitted, and the votes Of
many colored republicans were excluded.
IL the board had no power to 90 behind
the returns, it was bound to give certif-
Gates to republican electors. If it pos
sessed judicial power at all, it was bound
to consider the legality of the election in
these counties, and, being the only body
empowered to decide upon such ques-
ton, its decision is final. In either case
we are forced to the conclusion that the
State court had neither the legal power
nor the moral right, by any arbitrary and
inconsistent ruling, to force the Return
ing Board 10 give certificates to electors
whom the board believed not to have been
chosen,
Respecting members OF The Legislature,
however. the case is not quite as clear
II involves two questions: Had the court
any authority to restrain the board in its
action; had its authority been so exer-
clssd as.fo be Legally binding ? in Louis
lana, as il some other States. It has been
judicially decided that the Returning
Board Is itself the court Of last resort in
regard TO election. returns, and that there
is no appealfrom lis action to any other
tribunal. Whether the laws Of South
Carolina give the same power TO the board
of that State IL disputed, eminent lawyers
holding either opinion. But If the court
possessed any authority, was itexercised
The board was required 10 report the fact:
to the court, and did So. No later order
ofacourf IL Is claimed. had been seryet
upon the board The time TO which il
sessions are lim'trd, At east by the Gus
tomary construction Of The law, had ex
pred - The constitution REQUIRED it tt
perform certain daties. and il performed
them, apparently without any formal au
thority OF the court restraining it. This
seems To be the fact. If the reports thus
Gar are sustained. In that case the dc
cision of the board is final. The corr. hae
opportunity 70 use any authority it pos
ans rod and had ne oil & cial tn do 90 mi;