BY MEYERS & MENGEL.
TERMS OF PUBLICATION.
TUB BEDFORD GAZETTE is published every Fri
day morning by MEYERS A MUSSEL, at $2.00 per
annum, i f paid strictly in advance ; $2.50 if paid
within six months; $3.00 if not paid within six
months. AH subscription accounts MUST he
settled annually. No paper will be sent out of
the State unless paid for IN ADVANCE, and all such
uhscriptions will invariably be discontinued at
the expiration of the time for which they are
aid.
All ADVERTISEMENTS for a less term than
three months TEN CENTS per line for each in
sertion. Special notices one-half additional All
resolutions of Associations; communications of
limited or individual interest, and notices of mar
riages and deaths exceeding five line?, ten cents
per line. Editorial notices fifteen cents per line.
AH legal Notices of every kind, and Orphans'
Court and Judicial Sales, are required by hue
I be published in both papers published in this
place
[ All advertising due after first insertion.
A liberal discount is made to persons advertising
by the quarter, half year, or year, as follows: "
3 months, 6 months. 1 year.
♦One square - - - $4 50 $6 00 $lO 00
Two squares - 000 0 Oil 16 00
Three squares - - - 800 12 00 2U 00
quarter column - - II 00 20 00 35 Of l
Half column - - - 18 oO 25 00 45 00
One column - - - - 30 00 4 5 00 80 00
♦One square to occupy one inch of space
JOB PRINTING, of every kind, done with
neatness and dispatch. THE G AZETTE OFFICE has
just been refitted with a Power Press and new type,
and everything 4n the Printing line can l>e execu
ted in the most artistic manner and at the lowest
rates —TERMS 6ASH.
I letters should be addressd to
MEYERS A MENGEL,
Publishers.
i 1 tintino.
MM 11 £ BEDFOBD GAZETTE
POWER PRESS
I' ILI XTI N O EST A BLISIIME NT,
BEDFORD, PA.
MEYERS & MENGEL
PROPRIETORS.
Having recently made additional im
provements t<" our office, we are pre
quired to exeeute all orders for
PLAIN AND FANCY
J O Ii P HINTING-,
With dispatch and in the most
S UPERIO R ST YL E.
CIRCULARS, LETTER HEADS, HILL
HEADS, CHECKS, CERTIFICATES,
FLANKS, DEEDS, REGISTERS, RE
CEIPTS, CARDS, HEADINGS, ENVEL
OPES, SIIOWFILLS, HANDBILLS, IN
VITATIONS, LABELS,be. sc.
Our facilities for printing
FOSTERS, PROGRAMMES, Ac.,
FOR
VON C E RTS AND E XII IB ITIuNS,
ARE UNSURPASSED.
"PUBLIC SALE" BILLS
Printed at -short notice.
We can insure complete satisfaction
as to time and price
rjpHE INQUIRER
BOOKS T O R E,
opposite the Mengel House,
BEDFORD, PA
The proprietor takes pleasure in offering to the
public the following articles belonging to the
Book Business, at CITY RETAIL PRICES :
M ISC ELLA NE( >US lit >OKS.
N O V E L S.
BIBLES, HYMN BOOKS, AC.:
Large Family Bibles,
Small Bibles.
.Medium Bibles,
Lutheran liyran Books,
Methodist Hymn Books,
Smith's Dictionary of the Bible.
History of the Books of the Bible,
Pilgrim's Progress, Ac., Ac., Ae.
Episcopal Prayer Books,
Presbyterian Hymn Books,
SCHOOL BOOKS.
TOY BOOKS.
STATIONERY,
Congress, Legal,
Record. Foolscap,
Letter, Congress Letter,
Sermon, Commercial Note,
Ladies' Gilt. Ladies' Octavo,
Mourning, French Note.
Bath Post, Damask Laid Note,
Cream Laid Note, Envelopes, Ac.
WALL PAPER.
Several Hundred Difierent Figures, the Largest
lot ever brought to Bedford county, for
sale at prices CHEAPER THAN
EVER SOLD in Bedford.
BLANK BOOKS.
Day Books, Ledgers,
Account Books, Cash Books.
Pocket Ledgers, Time Books,
Tuck Memorandums, Pass Books,
Money Books, Pocket Books,
Biank Judgment Notes, drafts, receipts, Ac
INKS AND INKSTANDS.
Esrometer Inkstands,
Gutta Peroba.
Cocoa, and
Morocco Spring Pocket Inkstands,
Glass and Ordinary Stands for Sehools,
Flat Glass Ink Wells and Rack,
Arnold's Writing Fluids,
Hover's Inks,
Carmine Inks. Purple Inks,
Charlton's Inks,
Eukolon for pasting, Ac.
PENS AND PENCILS.
Gillot's, Cohen's,
Hollowbush A Carey's, Pay son.
Dunton. and Seribner's Pens,
Clark 's Indellible, Faber's Tablet,
Cohen's Eagle,
Office, Faber's
Guttknecht's, Carpenter's Pencils.
PERIODICALS.
Atlantic Mon.hly,
Harper's Magazine,
Madame Demirest's Mirror of Fashions,
Klectio Maaazine.
Godcy's Lady's Book,
Galaxy,
Lady s Friend,
Latiies" Repository,
Oar Young Folks,
Nick Nax.
Yankee Notions,
Budget of Fun,
Jolly Joker.
Phunny Phellow,
Lippineott - Magazine,
Riverside Magazine,
Wavcrly Magazine,
Bailou's Magazine,
Gardner's Monthly.
Harper's Weekly,
Frank Leslie's Illustrated,
Chimney Corner,
New York Ledger.
New York Weekly,
Harper's Bazar,
Every Saturday,
Living Age,
Putnam's Monthly Magazine,
Arthur's Home Magazine.
Oliver Optic's Boys and Girl's Magazine Ac. :
Constantly on hand to accomodate those who want j
to purchase living reading matttcr.
Only a part of Oie vast number of articles per- ,
taining to the Book and Stationery business, ,
which we are prepared to sell cheaper than the ]
cheapest, are above enumerated Give us a call I
♦ We buy and sell for CASH, and by this arrange- 1
uient we expect to sell as cheap as goods of this ;
class are sold anywhere
jan2V,'yl
Ytoofland's ifohimn.
you ALL
lIAVR HEARD OT
HOOFLAND'S GERMAN BITTERS,
AND
HOMELAND'S GERMAN TONIC.
Prepared by Dr. C. M. Jackson, Philadelphia.
Their introduction into this country from Ger
many occurred in
1825.
THEY CURED YOUR
FATHERS AND MOTHERS,
And will cure you and your children. They are
entirely different from w the many preparations
now in the country cal |— I led Bitters or Tonics.
They tire no tavern E X preparation, or any
thing like one ; but good, honest, reliable rnodi
cines. They arc
The greatest known remedies for
Liver Complaint,
DYSPEPSIA,
Nervous Debility,
JAUNDITE,
Diseases of the Kidneys,
ERUPTIONS OF THE SKIN,
and all Diseases arising from a Disordered Liver,
stomach, or
IMPURITY OF THE FLOOD.
Constipation, Flatulence, Inward Piles, Fullnes
of Blood to the Head, Acidity of the Stomach,
Nausea, Heartburn, Disgust for Food, Full
ness or Weight in the Stomach, Sour Eruc
tations, Sinking or Fluttering at the
Pit of the Stomach, Swimming of the
Head. Hurried or Difficult Breathing,
Fluttering at the Heart, Choking or
Suffocating Sersa fl ft tions when in a Lying
Posture. Dimness of * —" Vision, Dots or Webs
before the sight, Dull Pain in the Head, Defi
ciency of Perspiration, Yellowness of the Skin
and Eyes, Pain in the Side, Back, Chest,
Limbs, etc.. Sudden Flushes of Heat,
Burning in the Flesh. Constant Imagi
nings of Evil and Great Depression of Spirits.
All these indicate diseases of the Liver or Di
gestive Organs, combined with, impure blood.
HOOFLAND'S GEKMAN BITTERS
is entirely vegetable and contains no liquor. It
is a compound of Fluid Extracts. The Roots,
Herbs, and Barks from which these extracts are
made, are gathered in Germany. All the medi
cinal virtueus are ex . tracted from them by
a scientific Chemist, fl ft These extracts are
then forwarded to this V-W country to be used ex
pressly for the manufacture of these Bitters.
There is no alcoholic substance of any kind used
in compounding the Bitters, hence it is the only
Bitters that can be used in CBSOS where alcoholic
stimulants arc not advisable.
HOOFLAND'S GERMAN TONIC
is a combination of all tho ingredient? of tho Bit
ters. with PURE Santa Cruz Ruin. Orange, etc. It
is used for the same diseases as the Bitters, in case
where some pure alcoholic stimulus is required.
You will bear in mind that these remedies are en
tirely different from any others advertised for the
cure of the diseases named, these being scientific
preparations of medicinal extracts, while the oth
ers are mere decoctions of rum in some form. The
TONIC is decidedly one of the most pleasant and
agreeable remedies ever offered to the public. Its
taste is exquisite. It is a pleasure to take it, while
its lifs-giving, exhilarating, and medicinal quali
ties have caused it to be known as the greatest of
all tODics.
DEBILITY.
There is no medicine equal to HooCand's Ger
man Bitters or Tonic -m in cases of Debility.
They impart a tone |q and vigor to the whole
system, strengthen -L the appetite, cause an
enjoyment of the food, enable the stomach to di
gest it, purify the blood, give a good, sound,
healthy complexion, eradicate the yellow tinge
from the eye, impart a bloom to the cheeks, and
change the patient from a short-breathed, emaci
ated, weak, and nervous invalid, to a full-faced,
stout, and vigorous person.
Weak and Delicate Children are
made strong by using the Bitters or Tonic. In
fact, they are Family Medicines. They can be
administered with perfect safety to a child three
months old, the most delicate female, or a man of
ninety.
These remedies are the best
Blood Purifiers
ever known and will cure all diseases resulting
from bad blood. Keep y >ur blood pure ; keep
your Liver in order, m keep your digestive
organs in a sound, I healthy condition, by
the use of these reme E.J dies, and no diseases
will ever assail you The best men in the country
recommend them. If years of honest reputation
go for anything, you must try these preparations.
FROM HON.- GEO. W. WOODWARD.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylva
nia.
PHILADELPHIA March 18, 1867.
I find that "Iloofland's German Bitters" is not
an intoxicating beverage, but is a good tonic, use
ful in disorders of the digestive organs, and of
great benefit in cases of debility and want of "ner
vous action in the system.
Yours Truly,
GEO. W. WOODWARD.
FROM HON. JAMES TAOMPSON.
Judge of the Supreme Conrt of Pennsylvania.
PHILADELPHIA, April 28, 1866.
I consider "Hooftand's German Bitters'' a valua
ble medicine in ease . of attacks of Indiges
tion or Dyspepsia. I \ can certify this from
my experience of it. J-\- Yours, with respect,
JAMES THOMPSON
i
FROM REV. JOSEPH H. KENNARD, D. D.,
| Pastor of the Tenth Baptist Church, Philadelphia.
Du. JACKSON— DEAR SIR: —I have been fre
-1 quently requested to connect my name with rec
ommendations of different kinds of medicines, but
regarding the piactice as out of ray appropriate
sphere, I have in all cases declined, but with a
clear proof in various instances, and particnlarlv
in my own family, ol the usefulness of Dr. Hoof
land s German Bitters, I depart for once from
my usual course, to express u.y full conviction
that for general debility of the system, and es
pecially for Liver Com •-r- plaint, it is a safe
and valuable prepara tion. In some cases
it may fail ; but usual i" ly, I doubt not, it
will be very beneficial to those who suffer from the
above causes. Yours, very respectfully,
J II KENNARD,
Eigth, below CoatcsStreet.
CAUTION.
Iloofland's German Remedies are counterfeited.
The Genuine have the signature of C. M. JACK
SON on the front of the outside wrapper of each
bottle, and tho name of the article blown in each
bottle. All others are counterfeit.
Price of the Bitters, $1 per bottle;
Or, a half dozen for $5.
Price of the Tonic, $1 50 per bottle;
Or, a half dozen for $7 50.
The tonic is put up in quart bottles.
Recollect that it is Dr. Iloofland's German
Remedies that are so universally used and so
highly recommended and do not allow the
Druggist to induce I lyou to take anything
else that he may sayJL'U just as good, be
cause he makes a larger profit on it Those Reme
dies will be sent by express to any locality upon
application to the
PRINCIPAL OFFICE,
At the German Medicine Store.
No. 631 ARCJI STREET, Philadelphia.
CHAS. M. EVANS,
PROPRIETOR.
Firmerly C M JACKSON A Co.
These Remedies are for sale by Druggists, Store
keepers and Medicine Dealers everywhere.
Do not forget to examine the articlefypu buy
in order to ge.t the genuine.
iaay2l>'6Syl
THE REGISTRY LAW.
It is Declared Unconstitutional;
Injunction Awarded-Jns
tice Sharswood's Opin
ion in Full
On Saturday, in the Nisi I'rius, Jus
tice Sharswood delivered an opinion in
the case of Patterson and others against
Barlow and others, involving the con
stitutionality of the Registry Law. It
will be seen that the law is declared
unconstitutional and the reasons given
for this decision are presented forcibly,
and in language not to be misunder
stood.
The following is the opinion in full:
Sharswood, J.—This hill alleges that
the act of Assembly, approved April
27' 1809, entitled "An act further sup
plemental to the act relative to the e
lections of this Commonwealth" is un
constitutional, and, therefore, void. If
this is so, then previous decisions of
the Supreme Court, the authority of
which is binding upon me, have set
tled that the execution of it may and
ought to be prevented by injunction.
Moss vs. Reading, 9 Harris, 188 ; Sharp
less vs. The Mayor, 18, 417 ; Mott vs.
Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 6
Casey, It; Ewing vs. Thompson, 7
Wright, 37o; Kerr vs.Trego, 11 Wright,
292; Page vs. Allen et. al., S. C., July
2, ISGB. Althou 'h sitting as a single
Judge at Nisi Prius, I am undoubtedly
hound to act according to my own con
victions under my oath to support the
Constitution ; yet upon a (question of
this character and magnitude, I would
hesitate long before arresting the exe
cution ot an act of the legislature, if
my decision could not be immediately
brought before the Supreme Court by
an appeal.
In order "that the general great and
essential principles of liberty and free
government may be recognized and un
alterably established" the people of this
Commonwealth, in the fifth section of
the ninth article of the Constitution,
have declared "that elections shall tie
free and equal." To make it perfectly
clear that this and the other provisions
of that article —headed Declaration of
Rights—were not intended as directory
merely, but that they were to be ap
plied and enforced by appropriate sanc
tions and remedies, they emphatically
and solemnly add : "To guard against
transgressions of the high powers,
which we have delegated, we declare
that everything in this article is ex
cepted out of the general powers of
government, and shall forever remain
inviolate."
it follows as a necessary consequence
that any legislative act which destroys
or impairs either the freedom or tlie
equality of elections is null and void.
Tnese words in the Declaration of
Rights have certainly some meaning.
They are no brutem fulmen. They
were intended to prevent wrong or
wrongs, which might be attempted un
der the forms of law. They were use
less else. It is the manifest duty of the
judicial power so to construe them as
to give them value and effect as an ex
pression of the will of the people, made
known in the highest exercise of their
sovereignty, and paramount, therefore,
to an£ act or resolution of ttie Legisla
ture, or any other department of the
government.
I propose to consider what was meant
both by the freedom and the equality
of elections, and then apply the declara
tion of the Constitution as thus inter
preted to the act of Assembly, the va
lidity of which is now brought in ques
tion.
By declaring that elections shall he
equal, 1 think that it was evidently in
tended to provide that the regulations
for conducting them should be uni
form and that no distinctions, especial
ly as to the evidence required to prove
the elective franchise, should ever lie
made between one class of citizens and
another—between those residing in one
jilace and those resi dug in another. If
equality of election does not mean this,
it means nothing.
The Constitution, in section 1 of ar
ticle 111, has defined with great accura
cy those" who shall enjoy the rights of
electors. This definition of the elec
tive franchise the legislature can neith
er enlarge nor abridge. Subject to this
necessary limitation, they doubtless
have the power to prescribe how the
tribunals shall be constituted and chos
en, who shall receive and count the
votes, and, of course, decide who are
and who are not electors; the manner
in which, and the officers by whom
persons may be qualified by the assess
ment and payment of a tax, and the
evidence required of those who offer to
vote to prove their qualifications.
In all these respects, however, as it
seems to me, in order that elections
shall lie equal, the regulations on this
subject must be uniform throughout
the Commonwealtn. If the legislature
should enact different rules as to differ
ent classes of persons claiming to vote,
no one, I apprehend, would venture to
contend that such elections were equal,
or such laws constitutional. Put the
case that it should be provided thJit
professional gentlemen, clergymen,
lawyers and physicians should only be
required to prove their qualifications
by their own oath or affirmation, or by
their word of honor as British peers,
and all other persons by the testimony
of one or more witnesses on oath or af
firmation, would any one, lawyer or
layman, hesitate to pronounce elections
so conducted to be unequal, and the
provision therefore unconstitutional?
On what conceivable principle can a
distinction be drawn between such a
case and that of an act establishing one
rule for the people living in one elec
tion district, and a different one for
those in another—one rule for the peo
ple of the city of Philadelphia, and an
other for the people of the city of Pitts
burg, and the other cities and counties
of tne State? 1 have faithfully
endeavored to discover, but
without success. It was a wise
foresight in the franjers of the funda
mental law to declare that elections
should be equal. What more likely to
occur in the heat of political strife,
which so often blinds the eyes of men
to what is just and right in the pursuit
of victory, than that a majority in [low
er should attempt to maintain it by
throwing embarrassments in the way
of certain classes, whose sentiments
they might know or fear to be adverse
to them—to make the process of voting
more troublesome, uncertain, dilatory,
or expensive to them than to others, or
to accomplish the same unjustifiable
results as to some particular section of
country, to whose inhabitants they
may have rendered themselves obnox
ious? Even although the fact may be
that no duly qualified elector is neces
sarily excluded from the exercise of the
elective franchise, can the legislature
make an invidious distinction between
persons residing in one county and
those residing ih another, any more
than they can between different indi
viduals? Indeed the argument, if
sound, must logically lead to the last
infereoce. Iff he legislature can say
that the rule for the people of Phila
delphia shall be one, and that for the
people of Pittsburg another, they can
equally well say that the rule for John
Doe shall be one, and for Richard Roe
BEDFORD, PA., FRIDAY MORNING, JULY 16, 1869.
i another. The Constitution has, there
j fore ,as it appears to me, wisely or-
I da}tied that election laws shall operate
equally upon all citizens and upon all
parts of the Commonwealth. It has
saicl to the legislators: "Whatever
rules you establish in this matter shall
affect the rights of all your constituents
alike. Although on other subjects you
may adopt the policy of local legisla
iton 011 this most important one of elec
tions your laws shall he equal."
The violation of this fundamental
article of the Declaration of Rights in
i the act of April 17, 1809, now under
consideration, is patent and undis
j guised. The first seventeen sections
j are general, and appear to provide for
all parts of the Commonwealth. But
the eighteenth section declares that
"None of the foregoing provisions of
tiiis act shall apply to the city of Phil
| adelphia, excepting sections twelve
j and thirteen." Sections twelve and
i thirteen relate only to naturalization
! in court. The remaining sections, ex
\ eept the nineteenth, twentieth and
| thirty-eighth, which are immaterial as
j to this question, apply exclusively to
I the city of Philadelphia. They estab
' lish an entirely different system. No
one can deny that if this act goes into
operation we will have one code of
election laws for the city of Philadel
phia, and an entirely different one for
all the other parts of the State.
Ido not pretend to say that there
may not be some varieties of local leg
islation 011 this subject—looking to the
convenience of the citizens of different
sections- such as are merely modal.
| For example, in some places addition
| ai officers may be necessary, and the
| time and mode of counting the votes
, and making returns may be different;
j so of the manner in which the tickets
shall be voted: whether in separate bal
lots or otherwise—the times of opening
and closing the polls, and other minor
details ol the same character. A dif
ferent system is, indeed, absolutely re
quired in the case of persons voting
while in actual military service at a
distance from their usual place of elec
tion, but this difference is especially
authorized by the amendment of the
Constitution of 1864. Ido deny, how
ever, that sucli differences as*l shall
now proceed to enumerate are of this
modal character. I think the mere
statement of them will be enough to
show that they are material and funda
mental—seriously affecting the rights
of the electors—affording facilities in
the one system which are not afforded
in the other.
1. By what I shall term the general
system—meaning that provided for
the State generally, the officers of the
election are chosen as heretofore, by
the electors of each election district.
In Philadelphia they are to be appoint
ed by a board composed of the alder
men of the city—persons chosen by the
several wards for the performance of
entirely different duties.
2. By the general system the asses
sors are bound to assess all persons
claiming that privilege at any time up
to the tenth day before the election,
in Philadelphia no assessment can he
made after the twentieth day of Sep
tember in every year.
3. By the general system the asses
sors are bound to assess all who claim
a right to vote. In Philadelphia they
are to assess only those who are quali
fied voters at the time of the assess
ment, and must annex their affidavit
to the lists that every person whose
name is contained therein is aquaiiffed
elector, having a fixed res'.fence in the
division to the best of their knowledge,
information and belief.
4. By the general system a person
whose name is not on the assessors'
list may prove his qualification on the
day of elections at the polls. In Phil
adelphia he is required to make such
proof, at least ten days before the elec
tion, and to a different tribunal —the
division canvassers.
5. By the general system the claim
ant of a vote may prove his residence
by any one qualified voter of the dis
trict. In Philadelphia he is required
to make such proof, in addition to his
own oath or affirmation, by the affida
vit of two qualified voters of the divis
ion, whose names are contained in the
assessors' division transcripts, under
the head of private householders.
6. By the general system, in older
to prove payment of taxes, the tax re
ceipt need not he produced, if the affi
ant shall state in his affidavit that it
has been lost or destroyed, or that he
never received any. In Philadelphia,
if his name is not on the original asses
sors' list, the tax receipt must be pro
duced, and, in addition proof made
by satisfactory evidence that the tax
has been paid to the proper person au
thorized to recieve it.
7. By the general system the asses
sors are to place upon their list and as
sess all persons claiming a right to
vote, without any regard to their con
dition or station in society. In Phila
delphia they are forbidden to assessorig
inally any person boarding at any ho
tel, tavern, sailors' boarding-house or
any person who has not a fixed resi
dence in the district.
8. By the general system, tiie right
of any person claiming to vote, may
be challenged at the polls, by the qual
ified voter. In Philadelphia no voter,
whose name is registered, can he chal
lenged at the polls on any question of
residence.
9. By the general system persons of
foreign birth, who have declared their
intention to become citizens under the
act of Congress, and who design to be
naturalized defore the next election,
may be assessed. In Philadelphia no
one actually naturalized on or before the
twentieth of September can be assess
ed.
I may be allowed to remark here, in
passing, the author of the general sys
tem seems, accidentally, to have over
looked the fact that two classes of per
sons of foreign birth might becomecit
izens before the election by naturaliza
tion without having declared their in
tention, to wit: minors who arrived
in the country under eighteen years,
and soldiers honorably discharged
from service in the army of the United
States.
lb. By the general system, the assess
ment on the person can only be a per
sonal tax under the act of Assembly of
April 15,1834, section 4,(pamph, L,. 522),
which heretofore in this city and 1 be
lieve, elsewhere throughout the State,
has been put at twenty-five cents. In
Philadelphia there is a special election
tax of fifty cents imposed on each voter
when the original division transcripts
are made out (section 27),) and when
the extra assessments are made (sec
tion 28), wi hout regard to the fact that
tho personal tax may have been previ
ously assessed and even paid. I have
myself already been assessed for the
year 1869, and have paid a personal
tax of twenty-five cents. If 1 read this
act aright, the assessors are bound to
impose upon me an additional tax of
fifty cents. I see no reason why this
extra personal tax on the voters of
Philadelphia might not be fifty dollars
as well as fifty cents.
There are other differences, which
have not escaped my notice, but it
would extend this opinion unnecessa
rily to advert to them. Toe particu
lars enumerated make it, I think, suf
ficiently plain that the act of Assembly
of April 17, lSf>9, establishes two sys
tems of laws for conducting and regu
lating elections, materially and funda
mentally different, and if the position
hereinbefore assumed be sound, that
the declaration of rights in ordaining
that elections shall be equal, means
that the laws upon this subject shall
operate equally and uniformly upon
all classes of citizens and upon all parts
of the State, then this act is unconsti
tutional
But elections are to be free as well as
equal. By the freedom of elections T
understand not only that the voters
shall have free access to the [tolls in or
der to exercise their franchise without
intimidation by threats or physical
force, employed in the language of the
act of July 2, 1839, section 110 (Painph
L, 543), "to influence unduly or over
awe any elector, or to prevent
him from voting or restrain the free
dom of choice." hut also that full and
free opportunity shall be afforded to ev
ery person who is able to do so, to ob
tain the qualifications made requisite
by the provisions of the Constitution,in
order that he may enjoy the rights of
an elector, and that no regulations shall
be enacted whose object or tendency
shall be to impair or necessarily em
barrass such acquisition, much less un
der the pretence of regulation to pre
vent it altogether. 1 will not stop to
prove this proposition ; to my mind it
is self-evident. It would be in vain for
the Constitution to declare that all per
sons, who have complied with certain
prerequisites, shall enjoy the right of
electors, if the legislature can by law
exclude them practicJlly from such
compliance.
The sections of the act of April 17,
1569, which relate to the city of Phila
delphia, do this effectively as to a
large class of persons, though whether
large or small matters not. The lirst
section of the third article of the Con
stitution, in declaring that "In elec
tions by the Citizens every white free
man of the age of twenty one years
having within two years paid a state
or county tax which shall have been
assessed at least ten days before the
election, shall enjoy the right of an
electon," provides in effect that every
such citizen shall have a period of
time up to ten days before the elec
tion to procure himself to be as
sessed. If the legislature cannot dif
rectly enlarge or abridge this time,
neither can they indiectly accomplish
the same thing by appointing a differ
ent day for the closing of assessments.
By the twenty-eighth section of the
act of April 17' 18t>9, it is expressly en
acted that "no extra assessments shall
be made in the said city after the twen
tieth of September in any year." This
day so determined positively as the
last day upon which assessments can be
made, must be seventeen and may be
twenty-four days before the second
Tuesday in October. Thus the space
of time allowed by the Constitution
for assessment lias been manifestly a
bridgod from seven to fourteen days.
If it is competent to the legislature to
do this they might, with equal show of
right, enact that all assessments shall
close six months before the election,
and thus practically return to the Con
stitution of 1790, in disregard of ti*' a
mendment of 1839. This is as effectu
ally to overide and trample upon the
fundamental law as if they had under
taken to alter its terms. It will be
seen at once that ail those who from
sickness or temporary absence from
home, want of knowledge, or other cir
cumstances, have not been able to
make personal application to be assess
ed on or before the twentieth ol Sep
tember are precluded from the exer
cise of the elective franchise, unless it
should happen that they have been as
sessed at some previous period. It
cannot help a person to attend before
the division canvasser on the tenth
day before the election, for they have
no power to assess a tax, nor can they
by the express words of the act, place
his name on the list unless he shall
produce a receipt for the payment of a
State or county tax, assessed agreeably
to the Constitution.
The argument for the unconstitution
ality of the act might well be closed at
this point. But there are some other
provisions which 1 think ought to be
particularly noticed.
In making out the original divis
ion transcripts, before the first day in
June in every year, the assessors are
required to classify the electors under
the following heads, to wit: 1. Private
house holders. 2. Private residents,
(which 1 suppose, includes boarders at
private hoarding-houses). 3. Keepers
of hotels, taverns, sailors' boarding
houses, or restaurants. "In making
out the said lists the assessors shall not
[dace thereon the name of any person
boarding at any hotel, tavern, sailors'
boarding bouse, or restaurant, or the
name of any person who is not a quali
fied elector, having a fixed residence in
the division." After this positive
prohibition we would naturally ex
pect to find somewhere as positive a
direction to place the names of
these persons on the extra assessment
list, or the list of the division canvass
ers upon their personal application,
and making their qualification to ap
pear. The Constitution certainly does
not exclude them. It does not require
a fixed residence, whatever may be
the meaning of that term. Admit
however that they have the right to be
placed ou these subsequent lists, under
the general words of the act—what is
the evidence, which they a? well as all
others, whose names are design
edly or accidentally omitted from
the division transcripts, are required to
produce? In addition to his own oath
or affirmation, the claimant must prove
by the affidavit of two qualified electors
of the division, whose names are con
tained on the assessors' division tran
scripts under the head of private house
holders, that he is personally known to
them, that he is a bona Jhle resident of
the di v ision ,a nd tha 11 hey veri I y bel ie ve
that lie will be a qualified voter, enti
tled to vote iu the said division at the
next general election. Sections 28, 31,
33. Thus not only boarders at hotels,
tavers, sailors' boarding houses and res
taurants, who must make this proof,
but residents with private househol
ders, their sons, other relations, friends
and servants, and also boarders in pri
vate boarding-houses, whose names
may ho designedly or accidentally o
mit ted, have this unusual, invidious
and burdensome kind of evidence cast
upon them. They cannot avail them
selves of the testimony of the keeper
or clerk of tho hotel, but they
must be able to secure the evi
dence of two private householders, who
must reside in the division, and their
names must bo on tho assessors' divis
ion transcripts under the head of pri
vate householders, and they must be
willing to depose ou path or affirma
tion, from their own knowedge, that
the claimant is a bona fide resident of
she division, and, moreover, that they
verily believe that he will bo a quali
fied voter, entitled to vole in the said
division at the next geneiial elec
siou. The cla- upon whom this in
vidious burden is laid is large and re
spectable, comprehending journeymen
mechanics, clerks in hanks, insurance
offices and other corporations, as well
as in stores aud manufactories, and un
married workmen in all kinds of em- \
ployment, who arc usually Itoarders in
some shape or other. Practically,
numbers will find it very difficult, if
not iinjwissible, to fulfill these condi
tions. No such requirement is made
in any other part of the State, not
in Pittsburg, nor in any other large
city. There the testimony of one qual
ified elector is sufficient, whether he be
a resident in the division or elsewhere,
and that at the polls on the day of elec
tion, when of course the witness will
not be required to vouch his belief in
tho existence of a qualification in future.
But even if one of this unfortunate
class of persons—being a private resi
dent, or boarder at a privato boarding
house—finds his name on the division
transcript list he is safe. The division
canvassers, at their session, ou the tenth
day before the election, or at any ad
journed session to be held on the eighth
day, may in his absence, and without
notice to him strike his name from the
list by drawing a line in red ink
through the same, upon the testimony
of two reputable citizens qualitied vo
ters of tho division whose names ap
pear on the said transcript, under the
head of private householders, to begiv
iii under oath or affirmation, that such
person is not a resident of the division,
or is otherwise disqualified by law
from voting at said election (Section
30). If he has procured himself to be
placed on the extra assessment list by
the production of the extraordinary ev
idence required for that, he is still at
the mercy ol' the district canvassers,
who, in his absence and without no
tice, yes, and without evidence, may
strike his name from the list. "The
aid canvassers shall also examine and re
vise the extra assessment books of their
respective divisions, and shall strike
therefrom the names of all persons
who are not residing in the divis
ion on the tenth day before the elec
tion" (Section 35.) Is it necessary to do
more than simply recite these provis
ions? Need I add, that in my judg
ment, they are unreasonable, contrary
to the first dictates of natural justice,
and unconstitutional, because they
unnecessarily embarrass and prevent
the citizen from that free and full op
portunity of qualifying himself for the
exercise of the elective franchise, which
the Constitution guarantees to him?
After ail the complicated machinery
which has been constructed in order to
make up the final list of voters—the
original assessors' division transcript
prior to June—the board of aldermen—
the extra assessment between the first
and twentieth days of September, for
five consecutive days, to be appointed
'by that board—the division canvassers,
I with their revision of the list, on the
tenth and eighth days before the elec
tion, it is still perhaps a question upon
the construction of the act, whether a
duly qualified elector, whose name is
not on the registry, may or may not
prove his qualification to the election
officers, and vote at the polls. In the
fourth section, which relates to theoth
! or parts of the State, it is expressly de
clared that on the day of election any
j person whose name is not on theasses
sors' list may prove his qualification
| and he admitted to vote. The evidence
which he is required to produce is por
; tiealarly described. There is no such
provision in the sections which relate
to Philadelphia. The evidence which
shall be necessary before the assessors
and division canvassers is carefully
specified, as we have seen; but there is
is not a word as to what shall be the
evidence at the polls to the election of
ficers, except the list and some things
required in addition to it—production
of tax receipts with proof of identity,
andofcertifieatesof naturalization, witn
out proof of identity, it may perhaps
be argued, that, inasmuch as he is not
expressly excluded, a qualified voter
whose name is not on the list will still
have a right to vote on giving the evi
dence prescribed by the General Elec
tion Law of July 2, 183 ( J, section Gi>
(Pauiph. L. 531), which in this respect
is not inconsistent with the provisions
of this act, and, therefore, is not re
pealed. But this would present a very
gross incongruity; that two witnesses
and of a very special character, shall
be required to place a name on the list
in advance, while at the polls the
same thing can be done by the testi
mony of onecompetent witness, who is
a qualified elector, and who need not be
a resident of the division. 1 conclude,
therefore, that when it is declared in
the thirty-sixth section, that the list
when finally completed by the division
canvassers, "shall constitute the regis
try ofcitizens qualified to vote iu the
said divisions respectively at the next
general election" (section 30), it is an
affirmative necessarily pregnant with
a negative. If this be the true con
struction of the act, then my settled
conviction is that on that ground aloi.e
it is unconstitutional. Election day is
the proper time to prove the qualifica
tions of an elector, if required by an
inspector or challenged by a citizen;
for, from the very nature of the facts
which make up the qualifications, they
cannot be proved before. Residence
in the State one year, and in the elec
tion district ten days, both periods of
time to be immediately preceding the
election, are past facts only complete
and succeptible of proof then. No pre
vious proof can anticipate and take
the place of it. It is enough to say
that the Constitution does not require
tho eleetior to have the constant inten
tion of continued residence in the
State during the year, or in the dis
trict during the ten days. At the com
mencement of and during all that term
he may intend to remove, and yet in
fact continue to reside in the same place.
If he removes from one district to a
nothvr during the ten days he can
neither vote at the old nor the new
district. He loses His vote. A legis
lative attempt to remedy this by tiie
joint resolution of April 2(5, 1844,
(painph, L. 605), was very properly de
cided to be unconstitutional in Ewing's
case, (J. S., Philadelphia, July 22,
18G2, MS. Although a person may
have truly sworn ten days before that
it was then his intention to continue
his residence in the district until the
day of election, he may change his
mind and remove the next day. His
witnesses may depose, with great sin
cerity, that thej verily believe that,
on election day, he will be a qualified
voter, yet the result may show that
they were mistaken in their belief.—
On \vhat principle can an elector who
proves on that day that he possesses
every qualification prescribed by the
Constitution, be deprived of iiis elec
tive franchise because he has not prov
ed what, in the very nature of things,
he could not prove before? Let us
take, however, the case of one, who,
with every disposition to conform to
the regulations which the legislatures
have made, has applied aud been re
fused both by the assessors and the di
vision canvassers, because, by the ex
press provisions of the act, his name
could not he placed ou the list. A
citizen of foreign birth hits been natu
ralized the day before the election. —
He could not have been naturalized
itefore, because his time had not ex
pired. lie offers his vote tuj.be elec
tion officers at the polls, llels a citi
zen—a white freeman of the age of
twenty-one years—has resided in the
Slate for one year, and in the election
district ten days preceding the election,
VOL 64.-WHOLE No. 5,498.
and lias paid within two years a State
or county tax, assessed at least teu
days before the election. The tax may
have been a personal one, assessed up
on him at the previous triennial assess
ment, or it may be upon property own
ed by him. To reject such a vote i 3 to
deprive him of an undoubted right; it
is to violate the Constitution, which
says positively, imperatively, he shall
enjoy the rights of an elector. I need
not add that if, in consequence of the
prohibition contained in this act, he
was not assessed ten days before the
election, this system, which denies
him that privilege, deprives him just
as effectually by that means of his e
leetive franchise as by rejecting his
vote if he had been fully qualified.
There is another matter which seems
to need some explanation. After de
claring, in the thirty-sixth session,
that the final list shall constitute the
registry of citizens qualified to vote,
the act proceeds, "provided, that if
any person so registered shall cease to
be a resident of the division before the
election, he shall not be entitled to
vote therein." Yet the very next sec
tion enacts with equal positiveness
that "the said register shall he the only
evidence that the persons whose names
are found thereon have resided for ten
days immediately preceding the said
election in the said division, and no
voter whose name is so registered shall
lie challenged at the polls on any ques
tion of residence." I do not know
how these two provisions are to be rec
onciled, or which is to give way, the
first or the last, nor is it necessary now
to consider that question. It will cer
tainly be a very difficult one to decide,
if it should ever arise. I do believe,
however, after the fullest reflection,
that an act of the legislature which
makes a registry previously made up,
conclusive evidence of the qualifica
tions of all those whose names are on
it, whether as to residence or anything
else, as contrary to the Constitution as
an act which undertakes to exclude
those whose names are not found on it.
On the whole, I am clearly of the
opinion that the act of Assembly ap
proved April 17,18651, is unconstitution
al. I have not felt it to be my duty to
examine particularly the provisions
applicable to the other parts of the
State. As was held last year by the
Supreme Court, in relation to the act
of April 4, 18G8 —because it undertakes
to establish two different systems—the
entire act, at least, so far as elections
are concerned, except the first clause
of the fortieth section, must fall under
the same condemnation. There
appear to be some sections in re
lation to other matters upon which I
am not called to give any judgment.
The forty-third section, which repeals
such other laws as are inconsistent
with the provisions of the act, is of
course, to be construed to mean such
provisions as are constitutional and
nave the force of laws. "This conclu
sion," as was said by Chief Justice
Thompson, in Page et al. vs. Allen
et al., "leaves all the election laws in
force which were intended to be super
seded by this act."
Injunction awarded, upon security
being entered in the sum of one thous
and dollars.
I _
L E C T R I C
TELEGRAPH IN CHINA.
THE EAST INDIA TELEGRAPH COMPANY'S
OFFICE,
Nos. 23 & 25 Nassau Street,
NEW YORK.
Organized under special charter from the State
of New York.
CAPITAL $5,000,000
50,000 SHARES, $lOO EACH.
DIRECTORS.
Ho.i. ANDREW G. CURTIN, Philadelphia.
PAUL S. FORBES, of Russell A Co., China.
FRED. BUTTERFIELD, of F. Bu tterficld A C
New York.
ISAAC LIYERMORE, Treasurer Michigan Ccn
tral Railroad, Boston.
ALEXANDER HOLLAND, Treasurer American
Express Company, New York.
Hon JAMES NOXON, Syracuse, N. Y.
O. 11. PALMER, Treasurer Western Union Tele
graph Company, New Y'ork.
FLETCHER WESTRAY, of Westray, Gibbs A
Hardoastle, New Y'ork.
NICHOLAS MIOKLES, New Y'ork.
OFF! e E R S.
A. G. CURTIN, President.
N. MICKLES, Vice President.
GEORGE ELLIS (Cashier National Bank Com
monwealth,) Treasurer.
HON. A. K. MeCLURE, Philadelphia, Solicitor
The Chinese Government having (through the
Hon. Anson Burlingame) conceded to this Com
pany the privilege of connecting the great sea
ports of the Empire by submarine electric tele
graph cable, we propose commencing operations
in China, and laying down a line of nine hundred
miles at once, between the following ports, viz :
Population.
Canton 1,000,01X1
Macoa 60,000
Hong-Kong 250,000
Swatow 200,000
Amoy 250.000
Foo-Chow 1,250.000
Wan-Chu 200,000
Ningpo 400.000
Hang Chean 1.200,000
Shanghai 1,000,000
Total 5 010,000
These ports have a foreign commerce of $900,-
000,000, and an enormous domestic trade, besides
which wo have the immense internal commerce of
the Empire, radiating from these points, through
its canals and navigable rivers.
The cable being laid, this company proposes
erecting land lines, and establishing a speedy and
trustworthy means of communication, which must
command there, as everywhere else, the commu
nications ol' the Government, of business, and of
social life especially in China. She baa no postal
system, and her only means nowofcommuuicnting
information is by couriers on land, and by stoam
ers on water.
The Western World knows that China is a very
large country, in the main densely peopled; but
few yet realize that she contains more than a third
of the human race. The latest returns made to
her central authorities for taxing purposes by the
local magistrate make her population Four hun
dred and Four tee a millions, and this is more
likelv to be under than over the actual aggregate.
Nearly all of these, who are over ten years old,
not only can but do road and write. Her civili
zation is peculiar, but her literature is as exten
sive as that of Eurepe. China is a land of teach
ers and traders; and the latter are exceedingly
quick to avail themselves of every proffered facili
ty for procuring oarly information. It is observed
in California that the Chinese make great use of
the telegraph, though it there transmits messages
in English alone. To-day great numbers of fleet
steamers are owned by Chinese merchants, and
used by them exclusively for the transmission of
early intelligence. If the telegraph we propose
oonnocting all their groat seaports, were now in
existence, it is believed that its business would
pay the cost within the first two years of its suc
cessful operation, and would steadily increase
thereafter
No enterprise oommonds itself as in a greater
degree reaumcrative to capitalists, and to our
whole people. It is of vast national importance
commercially, politically and evangelically.
"The stock of this Company has been un
qualifiedly recommended to capitalists and busi
ness teen, as a desirable investment by editorial
articles in the New York Herald, Tribune,
World, Times, l'ost, Express, Independent, and
in the I'hiladclphia North American, Press,
Ledger, Inquirer, Age, Bulletin and Telegraph.
Shares of this oompauy, to a limited number,
may bo obtained at $5O each, $lO payable down,
$l5 on the Ist of November, and $25 payable in
monthly instalments of $2.50 eaob, commencing
December I, 18liS, on application to
DREXEL d, CO.,
31 South Third Street,
PHILADELPHIA.
Shares caii bo obtained in Bedford by applica
tion to Reed A Soholl, Bankers, who are author
ized to receive subscriptions, and can give all no
cessary information on tee subject. Sept26yi