The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-01-31

ass the constitute ion of the State requires,
hut was elected by the vi0a vocc vote Of
the Senators and members Of the House
Of Representative met in Joint assem-
bly,
In, the answer of the defeadantgit is
alleged %
.eThat in accordaSes' with the proyis
ssions of the iconsti titution of this State,
sseessios 24yarticlG2, and section II, arti-
Gle M was. kected to the Office of Judge
ofIthe sEhird Judicisl Circuit on the 18Th,
day Of FEBRUARY, "a. D. 1875, by the joint
vote Of the General Assembly Of South
+ Carolina, the members thereof voting.
sviva voos,. and their votes thus given be-
ing entered upon the journal of the house
to which they respectively belonged s, ];
and thas by virtue OF said election he
now holds and lawfully is in the exercise
!. of the said Office, and fhas not intruded
into the same = s. -
Sectioneli, article 4, provides how va.
cancies shall be filed, and on this point
there is no dispute. III &, ~.
Section "a, article 2, cited in; the an
swer, Is as follows: In all elections by
the General Assembly, or either House
thereof, the members shall yotesvtva goce,
and their votes thus given shall BEEN
tered upon the journal of the House to
which they respectively belong" y
And upon this the defendant rests hrs,
title TO- the Office. The facts are admit-
ted, and the question becomes, one of law
solely, and briefly stated is thus .!e
It issclaimed by the State-1. That
where the manner OF mode ot voting at
an election is. prescribed by the constitu-
ton, it must be observed, and that an
election By any other mode Of voting
than the one prescribed is null andyoid ;
2, that the constitution in section Is, ar
ticle 4,does prescribe the manner Of yot-
ing at the election of Circuit Judges
(vide :aboYei;} e, that, the said mode or
manner Of voting as prescribed by the
constitution was not observed at the cleo
ton !. By which defendant claims the
Office; 4; andathat, therefore, the cleo,
tion, is a nullity, and the defendant has
no rightito the Office ffss
On the. other hand, it is contended that.
the second proposition above set forth is,
ia law, not true but that the mode of
voting at the election of Circuit Judges
IS prescribed and fixed by section "a ar;
ticle2,sa well as by section IL, artlcle4,
ofthe constitution, and that the former
section prevails as to- the manner of yot-
ling. and Ehatsthe latter section applies
the manner in which the two
houses shall assemble for the purpose OF
voting. g.. that the election of defendant
was had in conformity to the require
ments of both sections of the constitution,
and-that, therefore, the election is good
in law, and the defendant lawfully holds
his e6ice.f
The general proposition, that where
the manner of voting is fixed by the con-
stitution it must be observed and obeyed,
is not controYerted. It is reduced, then,
to the naked inquiry, is the manner OF
voting st election Of Circuit Judges fixed
by the constitution? and if so, what is
that prescribe manner, and has it been
complied with In this case? Both sides
agree that the mode Of assembly Of the
two houses for the purpose Of voting is
prescribed by section t13, article 4, and
that the mode is joint assembly. But, IN
behalf Of the State, is argued that after
the two houses have met, the vote must
be .by ballot" whereas, the defendant
claims that the vote must be saf1svG voce,"
in obedience to section "a, article 2, of
the constitution. Which is the law?
The case was argued ION both sides
with ability, and did the time permit, !
would avail myself much more than un-
der the circumstances is possible Of many
of:the suggestions and cited authorities,
by which Is would be aided IN elaborating
an opinion upon so grave subject. But
it is obvious that If the court has arrived
at an Interchangeable conclusion, it is its
duty to render. decision promptly.
While it; is important that the reasons
should be, clearly set forth, it Is some
times more important that the conclusion
be. announced and uncertainty be re-
moved. & y ~
Let us now put together the two sec
tions in which the law of this case lies:
Section "a, article 2, legislative depart.
ment, aIn all elections by the General
Assembly, or either house thereof, the
members shall vote vivG voce, and their
votes thus given shall be entered upon
the. journal of the house to which they
respectively belong" I!5e
Section Is. article 4, judicial depart
ment, ..And for each circuit judge shall
be elected by joint ballot of the General
Assembly"
Were the last section considered alone,
there could be no doubt about its mean
ing. Effected by the two houses of the
General Assembly met in joint assembly
voting by ballot" The word sjoint," !"
of necessity, qualities the General As
sembly," for were it made to qualify the
word iaballot,n it would lead to the ab-
surdity of saying "vote by o joint ball or
ticket. which is impossible. We are
forced to adopt the plain meaning estab-
lished by the common use of the words,
by parliamentary usage and by legisla-
tive enactments, all concurring. Indeed,
the phrases quoted by counsel, "by joint
ballot, p"by ballot jointly" 'Jointly by
ballot" aud '.joint ballot" in connection
With elections by the two houses of the
! General Assembly, have interchangeably
been So used, and with undisputed and
undoubted Specification, from the time Of
the adoption of the constitution OF l7Ss
10 the time of the adoption OF the consti-
tuition Of. 1865.
But it is said that while aballot" and
sssynte,, ara not SYNONYMOUS, yet that by