The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1876-11-22

that Of members of the two houses is
equally strong; as to electors and
members of Congress, the act pre-
scibes that they shall proceed as for
ether officers; the act creating the
board of canvassers is the same as the
New York act. He referred to the
election laws of New York (page 38,
appendix to show that the board has
no power in = of contest or protest
nlso to Morgan vs.. Quackenbush, 22d
Barber, page II. also to 4th section,
page 81, Brightting's law of elections,
page 800, 4th Richardson, page 4s9, act
of 1858, special session.. page al.
That under section 10, article 8 OF the
constitution the persons receiving the
highest number Of votes shall lie de-
clared elected that the net Of 1870
first gave the board the power to de-
eide cases of contest or protest; that
section rs, article l of the constitution
requires that the three departments of
government shall be kept distinct the
board are strictly executive officers
such power would be judicial. and
therefore the act is unconstitutional !;
that these officers can be appointed
by the governor in case of q vacancy,
and this would in effect give him pow
er to pass upon his election.
At this point the Court took two
hours recess. Upon reassembllng Gen.
Conner continued. His points were /:
That the respondents admit that they
cannot act upon their own cases, but
they admit it only in form and not in
substance, because al! are elected on
the sams ticket and ut the same cleo
ton, and at decision on the case of one
of the board would affect the others
who are candidates ; the issues are the
same; the constitution forbids a judge
from sitting onlhis onw case hu: ever
if it did not forbid it, in words s, yet it
is q fundamental principle upon which
depends the administration of pure
and impartial justice so manifestly
just is this rule that Lord Coke has
said that ever all act Of Parliament
cannot make a maj q legal judge in his
own case.
Districts Attorney .Corbin followed
Gen. Conner. His points are as fol-
lows: That the board have frequent
ly exercised, without question, the
functions now sought to be forbidden ;
that the objection that the title Of all
act must cover all its objects and re-
late to one subject Is not of force, as
the act of 1870 has been repealed /;
that a member of the board by retir-
ing when his case NAs called removed
the objection that he was sitting on his
own u {; that the functions claimed
for the board are not more judicial
than those of other officers in the dali
ly discharge of their duty that the
constitution gave the Legislature the
power to create new tribunals az OF
trial justices. $500.
Elliott followed, and argued In brief
that, where a duty is imposed, all the
power necessary to the performance of
that duty, of the board IL to declare
who Is entitled to prima fdcie evidence
of election. aud, in order to do that.
may take testimony under oath and
penalties, &c. ,
Mr.. Youmans replied, and argued
that those amendments only implied
in the case of superior tribunals. He
dwelt oil the Importance of keeping
the three departments Of the govern
ment distinct, and in general enlarg-
ell upon the points of the preceding
counsel. The court adjourned until II
tomorrow, when the decision of the
court will be rendered.