With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 371, 397-98, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) (upholding statute which permitted circuit courts to appoint election supervisors); see also Morrison v. Olson, 108 S.Ct. at 2613, 2614 n. 20 (detailing other non-adversarial functions courts may exercise); Keller v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 261 U.S. 428, 442-43, 43 S.Ct. 445, 448-49, 67 L.Ed. 731 (1923) (ruling that Congress’ power to exercise exclusive legislation over District of Columbia permitted it to assign district courts the responsibility to oversee Public Utilities Commission). . The test is whether an assignment of authority to the judicial branch presents an “incongruity in the duty required as to excuse the courts from its performance, or to render their acts void.” Siebold, 100 U.S. at 398; see also Morrison v. Olson, 108 S.Ct. at 2610 (<HOLDING>); Hobson v. Hansen, 265 F.Supp. 902, 914

A: holding that defendant did not have a special responsibility to exercise independent judgment in the plaintiffs behalf and to look after the plaintiffs interests
B: recognizing the existence of the special relationship
C: holding that special courts appointment of independent prosecutor not incongruous
D: holding that party timely objected to appointment of special master and did not waive its right to object when it objected to appointment several days before it participated in proceedings before special master
C.