The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1876-01-06
The Charleston Meeting and Gov.
Chamberlain.

Ing held there laSt week, IN releIenCe 10
the conduct of Gov. Chamberlain in re-
fusing to issue commissions to the newly
elected Judges, Whipper and Moses,
which has excited such wide comment
throughout the country. We wish that
we could agree with our friendsi in Charles.
ton as to the effect of Gov. Chamberlain's
action in the premises, and then perhaps
we might coincide with the line of policy
inaugurated there in holding meeting
to sustain and endorse that conduct. But
we do not concur in the idea that refu-
sing to grant commissions to these mise.
rable caricatures on the judiciary demon
strates wisdom on the part of Gov. Cham
berlain or points to the best possible
method of averting the calamities i'm
pending over an outraged people, al
though we believe that the Governor act
ed SINGER ly and patriotica!ly in taking
this extreme position. He was too strong
ly committed against Whipper and Moses
not to make an effort to thwart their ele-
yation to the bench, and his signal fail
ure to interpose his influence prior to the
election made it incumbent upon him to
take some decisive action, if within his
power, and as a dernier resort he with
held his signature from their commits
sions, which he was enabled to do upon
plausible and alleged legal grounds. We
think he has made grave mistake, how
ever, and will endeavor to show wherein
his action has forced the issue in legal
aspect much earlier than was possible
under other circumstances, besides plac-
ing himself in an attitude which may re-
suit unfortunately for the welfare of the
State.
The Constitution, in defining the du-
ties of Governor, says: "He shall COM
mission all officers of the State" Had
Gov. Chamberlain commissioned Whip
per and Moses, with the rest of the Jud-
ges elected by the Legislature, the legal
question as to the tenure of Office could
not have been made until the 26th of
August next, when the terms of the pres
ent incumbents, Messrs. Reed and Shaw,
are alleged to expire. In that event,
Whipper and Moses would have been
obliged to demand their right to sit upon
the bench of their respective circuits,
which Messrs. Reed and Shaw, it is just
and reasonable to presume, would not
yield without litigation before the Su-
preme Court. Then, as they would be
compelled to act separately, the cases of
Whipper and Moses would come up for
adjudication by the Supreme Court, and,
as Chief Justice Moses could not act
upon matter in which his son is inter-
ested, the Governor would have the pow
er to designate some one in his place,
when the question might be adjudicated
in fairer and more impartial manner.
Now, the action of Gov. Chamberlain
will prevent this delay, since he has de-
clined to commission the newly-elected
Judges, and gives them an opportunity
of pressing the question before the Su-
preme Court at once, and waging an ag-
gressive warfare upon him through the
machinery of party organization, which
it has been demonstrated is under their
control already. Besides, instead of al
lowing Messrs. Reed and Shaw to act
upon the defensive, it was at the Cover
nors suggestion, we believe, that these
gentlemen fled caveats with him against
issuing commissions to Whipper and
Moses, and as a consequence they are
upon the record, and will be made par
ties litigant in whatever proceeding may
be had before the Supreme Court.
But, the question arises at once, in
what respect does the action of Gov.
Chamberlain hasten a decision of the
matter? We answer that it enables
Whipper, in order to make a test case,
to ask a mandamus from the Supreme
Court to compel Gov. Chamberlain to is
sue his commission, in accordance with
the provision of the Constitution already
quoted. It is contended by able lawyers
that the Supreme Court has no right to
issue mandamus against the Governor,
because he represents coordinate
branch of the State government, and is
not controlled by the judiciary in his ex-
ecutive functions. The Supreme Court
is charged with the construction of law
and the rendition of DEGREES for the en-
forcement of its provisions. 1t cannot
compel the making of laws, but it can de-
cree the execution of laws already made.
The Governor is not excepted anywhere
from such DEGREES, and, in common with
all other officers and citizens, he is bound
to obey the laws when duly expounded,
and the Courts of the State are the proper
tribunals to set him right, when he diso-
beys or disregards the law. Suppose the
Supreme Court issues mandamus, which
the Governor refuses to obey. He is the
chief constable of the State, and sets at
defiance the mandates of the highest ju-
dicial tribunal in the State, which would
subject him as a last resort to impeach-
ment by the Legislature, another co-ordi-
nate branch of the government. These
are the checks and balances of our sys-
TEN, which restrain one department OF
the government by the interposition OF
the other for the preservation of law and