The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1908-04-01
D0DGED THE ISSUE.
STATE SUPREME COURT ON CAL
HOUN COUNTY ELECTION.
A Decision That Decides Nothing FIX.
cept That Disfranchiscd Voters
Have No Redress i'm the Courts.

Have No Redress in the Courts.
The formal opinion Of the state Su-
preme Court in the Calhoun County
election has been filed and we are
sorry to say that it is an opinion that
does not do much credit to that So
called higher court. The case is that
of Parler and others against State
Treasurer Jennings and others as
members of the State board of cleo
ton canvassers.
The court in the opinion written by
Justice Gary, holds that the ques-
tons of fact in these cases are left
to the State board of ~anvasse to
decide. The board has found that If
| all the electors residing in the terri
tory of the new county, but whose
polling precincts were outside had
voted al the new county election the
result would not have been changed.
The court declares that it is not
necessary to pass on the constitution
atty of the statute in question. in
order to protect the right of the cleo
tors to take part in the election, as
the Court follows the well settled
rule not to take into consideration
the constitutionality Of an Act of the
General Assembly unless it is neces-
sary to do so. The action Of the
State Board Of canvassers is there
fore upheld.
1t will be recalled that there is a
conflict between the provisions of the
Constitution and the Act of the Cen
eral Assembly in regard to the right
to vote in new county elections. The
Constitution declares that all qualit1-
ed electors residing within the pro-
posed new county shall vote while
the status provide for the opening
of the polling places at only these
precincts within the territory, where
as, as in this last of Calhoun County,
the polling places of certain quail"
fed electors who reside in the terri
tory are outside of the territory. The
Court does not undertake to settle
this conflict.
It will be seen that the Court COM
pletely lodges the issue and leaves
the decision of a most important ques
ton to a lot of men who knows no
more about it than a lot of catfish
does about Sunday. When the ques-
ton was before the State Board OF
Canvassers, and after the question
had been argued pro and con for
several hours by the learned counsei
on both sids, one of the board grave
ly endured If all the people in Or
augsburg County had not been al
lowed to vote on the question or
forming the County Of Calhoun. This
shows how competent at least one
member of the board was to pass on
the important question.
It would have been much better
for the Court to have taken a manly
stand and decided the question
way or the other, v e if they had
gone against the disfranchised voters,
than to shift their responsibility on
on an ignorant board of State Can
vassers. The question involved was
not a question of fact at all, but a
question of law and justice, involv-
ing the right of many legal voters to
exercise a privilege guaranteed them
by the State and Federal Constitu-
ton. The action of the Court In this
case is not creditable to it as the sup
posed custodian of the rights OF all
the people in the State.-The Orange
burg Times and Democrat.