Wright v. State Board of Canvassers

• Decision Date: 22 April 1907
• Citation: 57 S.E. 536,76 S.C. 574
• Parties: WRIGHT v. STATE BOARD OF CANVASSERS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

57 S.E. 536

76 S.C. 574

WRIGHT v. STATE BOARD OF CANVASSERS.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 22, 1907

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Hydrick Judge.

Certiorari by Henry Wright against the state board of canvassers. From an order setting aside decision of the board, it appeals. Affirmed.

The following are defendant's exceptions:

"(1) Because it is respectfully submitted that Judge Hydrick erred in finding that the state board of canvassers found as a fact that the grounds of the contest were all true, whereas, as shown by the record, said board only found as follows: First. That the return of the managers at Laurens box was not signed. Second. That at least 6, and not more than 21, registered electors voted at wrong precincts--Laurens and Clinton. Third. That the production of a registration certificate and proof of the payment of taxes for the present year, by the electors at the Laurens and Clinton boxes, was not required.

(2) Because he erred in holding that the production of a certificate of registration and proof of the payment of taxes, by the production of a tax receipt, were conditions precedent to the casting of a legal ballot.

(3) Because he should have held that, under the Constitution of this state, the only prerequisites to the casting of a legal ballot are: (1) The registration of the voter; (2) proof of the payment of taxes for the preceding year--such as shall satisfy the managers, and not, necessarily, the production of a tax receipt.

(4) Because he should have held that if there is any statute in this state providing that the actual production of a registration certificate, and the production of a tax receipt, are prerequisites to casting a legal ballot, that such statute is in derogation of the Constitution, and is therefore, null and void.

(5) Because he erred in not holding that section 213 of the Code of 1902 ought to be construed in connection with section 193 of the Code and with the provisions of the Constitution relating thereto, and that when so construed they do not require the actual production of a registration certificate, nor the production of a tax receipt.

(6) Because he erred in holding that the various sections of the Constitution and the statutes passed in pursuance thereof require the actual production of a certificate of registration and a tax receipt as conditions precedent to voting.

(7) Because he erred in holding that the state board of canvassers erred in holding that the votes cast at Laurens and Clinton precincts should be counted, and in reversing the decision of the county board, whereas he should have sustained the action of the state board.

(8) Because he erred in passing at all upon the findings of the county board, as to matters upon which there was no testimony whatever, such as that persons were allowed to vote at boxes other than Laurens and Clinton, without registration certificates, etc., the petition not alleging irregularities at other boxes, and there being no proof of the same; it being respectfully submitted that the circuit judge was without jurisdiction to pass upon such questions.

(9) Because he erred in not sustaining the decision of the state board when it did not appear that the irregularities complained of were sufficient to change the result of the election; there being no fraud charged or proved.

(10) Because he erred in not sustaining the action of the state board when it appeared that a fair and honest election had been held in Laurens county, in which a majority of the qualified voters had voted in favor of "No Dispensary," and in not holding that the matters alleged in the petition, and such as were proved, were, at most, only irregularities, which could not affect the result of the election, and thus alter the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.

(11) Because he erred in not sustaining the action of the state board, and thus sustaining the election, when there was absolutely no proof that the irregularities complained of changed the result of the election .

(12) Because he erred in not holding that he only had jurisdiction (in this proceeding) to pass upon such errors of law as were committed by the state board, and in not holding that under the findings of fact of the state board the defects complained of and proved were only irregularities which could not affect the result of the election.

(13) Because he erred in not sustaining the action of the state board, and in reversing the same, when it is respectfully submitted that under the findings of fact of the state board there was no proof whatever, such as would vitiate the election; it being respectfully submitted that the circuit judge was without jurisdiction to reverse any findings of fact of the state board, and that the state board found no facts which would change, or tend to change, the result of the said election.

(14) Because he erred in not holding that the plaintiff herein, Henry Wright, was without authority of law to maintain this action --he being merely a private citizen and utterly without any pecuniary interest in said controversy--when he should have held that the action ought to have been brought in the name of the state, and he was without jurisdiction to consider the action when brought by the plaintiff herein."

Leroy F. Youmans, Atty. Gen., Ferguson & Featherstone, and W. R. Richey, for appellant. Jno. M. Cannon and Bellinger & Welch, for respondent.

POPE C.J.

The plaintiff on the 6th day of March, 1906, exhibited his complaint wherein he alleged: That he was a resident and taxpayer, and was the owner of both real and personal property in Laurens county, of the state of South Carolina, subject to taxation therein, and was the head of a family, having children of school age who are duly attending the public schools of said county. The General Assembly of the state in 1892 (21 St. at Large 1892, p. 62) duly passed what was known as the "Dispensary Act of 1892." That thereafter the General Assembly of the state, in the year 1896, passed an act amendatory to said dispensary act which was amended in the year 1904, commonly known as the "Brice bill." That in pursuance of the acts of the General Assembly two dispensaries were established in the county of Laurens, and the profits accruing to the town and county of Laurens, amounting to $77,450.07, which had been applied to assist in defraying the general county expenses and thereby materially lessening and reducing the taxes, which otherwise the petitioner would have been compelled to pay. That on January, 1906, in accordance with said acts an election was held to determine whether the taxpayers of Laurens county preferred not to have dispensaries in said county. That the election was held by the managers duly appointed by law, but at said election at the two precincts known as "Laurens No. 1," and "Clinton No. 1," and Princeton precinct the managers at said election allowed persons to vote without requiring said voters to produce and exhibit their registration certificates and proof of payment of taxes for the year 1905. That thereby the result of the election was so changed, instead of there being a majority in favor of the retention of said dispensaries in Laurens county, there was an apparent majority of 46 in favor of no dispensaries in said county of Laurens. That the votes cast at said election came before the county board of canvassers of Laurens county to be canvassed, who after due consideration held and so returned that said election in the various boxes was conducted so irregularly, such as voting outside of the right precincts, not demanding registration tickets, neglecting to take necessary oaths, etc. That the most just and fairest manner of dispensing with the matter is to declare that there is no legal election held in Laurens county. Thereupon the contest was carried up to the state board of canvassers, who decided to reverse the action of the county board of canvassers for Laurens county, though they found that the production of registration certificates and proof of payment of taxes for the previous year at the Laurens and Clinton boxes was not required. That, therefore, on the complaint of the petitioner a writ of certiorari was issued by Judge Hydrick, who pronounced the following decree by which he upset the action of the state board and sustained the action of the county board of canvassers:

"Under the provisions of the dispensary law, an election was held in Laurens county, January 9, 1906, on the question of dispensary or no dispensary. The state commissioners of election organized as the board of county canvassers and canvassed the votes. The plaintiff contested the election on the ground of alleged irregularities and illegalities at the Laurens, Clinton, and Princeton precincts, to wit: (1) That persons were allowed to vote at Laurens precinct who were not registered for that precinct. (2) That persons were allowed to vote at Laurens and Clinton precincts without being required to produce their registration certificates and proof of the payment of taxes for the previous year. (3) That there was no registration of the voters for Princeton precinct. (4) That the ballots voted by the opponents of the dispensary had printed thereon only the words, 'No Dispensary,' whereas he contends they should have had thereon the words 'Dispensary or No Dispensary.' The contestants contended that these polls should be rejected and the result declared according to the vote of the remaining precincts. After taking testimony, the board declared that the majority of the total vote of the county, including the precincts above named, was in favor of 'No Dispensary'; but, on account of irregularities and illegalities which they found to have been practiced at those

...