New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-12-01
THE PITH or THE SOUTH CAROLINA
DJSpJTTE


II seems plain that the United States officer
in command at Columbia has blundered. There
can be no doubt of his excellent intentions,
and his honorable, soldicrly instincts. But it
was a wretched blunder to set his troops to
examining the certificates of members of
the Legislature. 1t is worse one to
send his staff officer upon the floor
of the House, to give notice that the next day
he will not permit what he has permitted to-
day, in the matter of the claimants from Edge
field Obviously he is trying, in this clumsy
wav. to sustain the officer legally charged with
the organization of the present Assem-
bly,, namely, the Clerk of the last
one. But this sort of support IL
worse than none at all, and it is not to be
wondered that able men like Wade Hampton
and United States Senator Gordon make the
most of it.
But these gentlemen are themselves in
position still less tenable. They are trying to
force into the House men who may or may not
be legally elected, but who certainly have not as
yet any legal proof of it in the shape of certiti-
cate of election which the Clerk of the Assembly
can recognize. Precisely here is the pith of
the whole matter, and it is most dcplOTable
that the laundering about troops should be
permitted to obscure the real issue. 1t was
substantial justice which the interference of
the troops secured although it ought not to
have been secured in that way.
But, it is said, the proper certificates OF
election were fraudulcntly denied to these
Edgefeld claimants, in defiance of the fact
| that they had been duly elected and that the
Supreme Court has remeded the difficulty.
Now the Constitution and laws OF South Caro-
lima distinctly provide that certain officials
shall canvass the votes for members Of the
Legislature. and, if they find that any were
unlawfully cast or returned, shall throw out
such returns. The judicial power is clearly
| piven. and there is TO rule of law more thor
oughly established than this, that where dis
cretiOnary power is intrustcd to a certain body
| or officer 10 other branch of tle government
can interfere with the exercise of that discrc-
/ ton. 1t is claimed that the court. and not the
] Board of Canvassers, had power to decide
and the court attempted to do so by writ OF
| mandamus. But the Supreme Court OF the
! limited States has repeatedly held that in
such case 10 court has power to interfere
| by that writ. Thus, in United States agL.
! Guthrie az Howard, 304, the court say:
| The only acts to which the power Of the courts by
mandalnus extends are such purely ministerial,
and with regard which nothing like Judgment or DIS
erection in the performance OF his duties Is LETT To the
officer; but wherever the right OF judgment or dis
erection exists him, II Is he ind not The courts VINO
/ can regulate ITS exercise
! So in the case of Decatur agt. Paulding, when
court of the District of Columbia attempted
| by mandamus to compel the Secretary OF the
! Navy to perform an act not merely ministerial,
| the Supreme Court decided:
! Tie court could not entertain appeal from the
decision of one the Secretaries, revise his Judgment
in any case where the law authorized him TO exercise
discretion or Judgment. Nor IL by mandamns act
directly up0n the officer, and guide and control MS Judg-
tnt or discretion in the matters committed 10 his care
| in the ordinary discharge OF his Official dutcs.-l Ia
Peters, 52i.
| II is therefore clear that the court had no
mower to direct the Board Of Canvassers in
| the exercise of the discretionary power in
! trusted TO it, and any writ of that nature was
void. The whole act of the court was a fia-
grant usurpatlon, and we believe there will
be found few lawyers of any party hardy
enough to defend it. But it it were
not, it happens that no such writ was
served upon the board. There is not
a shadow of proof that the board knew
/ that any order had been made by the court,
nor is there any proof whatever that the
I board, which met at 10 a. III. and adjourned
at / p. H., had not issued It's certificates be-
fore the court, which met later in the day,
| had issued any order. Thus, all that
appears thus far respecting the va
hdity of the certificates issued. is
that they were duly given by the
only body constitutionally empowered to can
vass the votes and decide as to the validity of
returns, and were given in the absence of any
: order, void or valid, from any court whatever,
! calling for different decision. The members
! who were refused certificates on the ground
that they were not legally elected, demanded
seats by viltue of the undelivered order of the