Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1918-07-26
DISPUTED SCHOOL ELECTION
What Judge Moore Thinks OF Quar-.
rel In District N0.29.
IRREGULAR BUT LAWFUL.
An Order Which Touches Upon Va
rious Points Of Difference. and
Throws Some Light Upon the Prop
er Manner of Conducting Elections.

er Manner of Conducting Elections.
Th. effect OF Judge Ernest Moorcs
recent order in the case OF X. I. cav
eny and others against Ed Mcdaniel
and others, has already been an
nounccd. Attorneys for the plain
tiffs in the case have requested the
publication oi the order IN full Tor the
benefit OF the parties directly at in
trrcst. and in the belief that such
publication will be OF educational
value generally. the request IL being
complied with. The order follows:
The above matter came before me
originally on an order 10 show cause
why temporary restraining ord'r
heretofore granted 10y mc against the
defendants should not br made per
manrnt, and especially against the
defendant, Itroadus NJ. Love. ~ audi
tor Of York county, restraining him
from entering upon his books as Il
tax duplicate the four mills addi-
tion;u levy voted upon. The tempo
inry restraining order was granted
upon the verified complaint and GER
tain aiIidavits attached thereto.
School district No. %. OF York
county. South Carolina, held an cleo
tion on the 10Th day of June, 1918
for the purpose OF asccrtaining whrth-
.r or not AN additional levy of four
mills should he placed on all the prop
rrty in said school district for school
purposcs. \ levy OF four mills already
existed. At said election tn" trus-
tees of the said school district. who
are named rs defendants herein. act
rd as managers of the said election.
The statute required them to so act.
The managers made return TO the au-
ditor of York county that count OF
the ballots showed that twrnty-siX
votes were cast in favor Of the levy
and sixteen against. In counting the
ballots, two ballots. one hraring the
word YES" and one the word NO.
were folded tightly together, and, us
subsequently developed. was so fold
cd and voted by one person. The de-
PENDANTS in their return state that
they did not discover that there were
two ballots thus folded until the fol-
lowing day. and that in opening these
two ballots they saw only the ballot
bearing the word Yes" but on tn"
following day they discovered folded
within this Yes" ballot "a NO" bal
lot. They reported the matter to the
superintendent of education. and
thereafter both ballots were thrown
out. which would leave the vote % to
l6 in favor of the additional levy.
Many irrcGularities are charged In
the complaint: That two Of the man.
ayers would leave the box, with only
one manager in charge at frequent in
tervals: that the polls were closed be-
fore o'clock: that the managers Of
rcrrd to pay the taxes of certain vot-
crs If they would vote in favor OF the
levy; that certain voters were allow
cd to vote without presentation OF tax
receipts and registration certificates,
and that the box in which the ballots
were deposited was not locked.
When the matter came up to be
heard by me as to whether or not the
restraining order should bc made per-
manent. all parties agreed that the
final determination OF the issue should
now he held. and that the court
should pass upon the merits Of the
beth as to the law and
as to the facts. The defendants fail
cd their return. and in my opinion
successfully rcbutted all of the ale
cations Of the complaint except the
one alleging that the box was not
locked: hut they do show, and show
conclIsivcly. that the lid of the box
was tackled down and remained so
fastened until the conclusion of the
election. at which time 1t was "prizcd
or pulled OPEN"
I take this occasion to state en-
phatically that no fraud was shown
on the par Of the managers Of tho
election. In fact. counsel for plain
tiffs stated in open court that he did
not allege fraud. but only alleged ir-
rcg,llarities. He did contend. howcv-
err from affidavits presented and in
fcrcntially, that the vote was n tie. ]
do not think II Is so established by
the evidence. The plaintiffs present
an affidavit signed by nineteen voters.
saying that they voted NO" at the
election. Tho defendants present an
affidavit signed by twenty-thrcc vot-
ers SAYING they voted Yes" at this
election. The defendants also present
ahidavits showing that at least one
other voter voted Yes" although he
signed the affidavit saying he voted
NO" ! do not think that this court
would br governed by a canvass Of
the voters taken after the election.
but even If II was so governed. the
ailidavits are clear that Mt least %
voters voted in favor Of said addition
nj levy. This would give the aiIir-
native side n clear majority OF the
votes cast.
The affidavit of plaintiffs alleges
that the managers were unduly active
in soliciting voters TO vote for the tax.
The managers admit that they were
anxious for the levy to carry. for the
reason that the school district was in
debt and could not operate on four
mills. and state that they did solicit
the voters by legitimate argument to
vote for the additional four mills.
! do not think It altogether proper
that the managers of the election
should engage in soliciting votes, but
on the CONTRARY, 1t was improper to
do this: but In this case It has not
been shown that any undue influence
or coercion was used that would In
any way change the result of the cleo
tion.
This leaves with me but one ques-
tion OF fact and law to pass upon.
which Is: In that section Of the act re-