tin COOK.
S AXO SA V3JVJ,
sffi h o e^.
151.
nckly und regnlui. '
unuxl on-
a» tliat nnpi^r*l
-
of Ours or 2J *
■|' inYitod tocUl.l
‘ ;c r««uplc,
hokmakeil
I- Blair <W|»
Cooldng iSIL
lAng. 12, xgj^«
j VKS.-n,,
nil ‘respect*.
fine.-- are eoorraju.
• perfectly and uj.
:>.s Sti.\e mnitm
ci rnl faroritw. •.
rood
and in n Uiorwid.
!;■ be iveommenSU
ves constantly
’II U. BCKH. -
■i llmizr, Altoonaf
'IC OIL,
DC VALL.fc,;
nris, U now-eft
r sore and pabh
my part of tJu
• brerut oratJif
-ua, headkchS
disNwo thotU
•-r this claasat
PKT. wTZ«
vp tl}« rafttir
‘V to tbs Mfe.
rging to tfcM
cnloffto
’roprjotar, '
[via;own, Tq. :
ary Lihr,a:tr.
abalQnifarni^
s? PKEIIAi
[• 6rstU,thOlt|k
Kssas
[
[miug IWM riwlt
La-of yiic^iS
t;, is in OiicdHi
l-dy newaAku*.
lUp Anther;,tifiy
I- onabted to tnr»
libSp co«t, thtfsby
day.
[ ‘iu a Mahali®-
I-kv itomf* toPr.
IrkCltyV
ry, k££d
kiethodcCbWk
fmedlclnv iuirS
[ALL'S OALTa£
Irr.doftni^wk
hful port,ndfm
[uti RtwM'awvfi
Ir.rui coatispdki.
B so makagonlW
I nearly ♦"a—»»
I. u. iiauk;
Centro ML
hiy.—tab
pw Xip«f|Ur
b«, contaiaiMSU
Ictnal loeaSthltjdf
r, School Hmmm,
pres, fom Heat-
J-ros, * Ikbtoot
m;- the nas»|M
rav-.-d on toa ißtf
tale eoutttub
I’d bocol.ndul
to lubscnben •*
BCKL OEIL,
IAC O. FKEKD.
actical
tn-RS,
Lntly Kf
[c«s.
pn-
siro torend*r**h
iity. he hopest*
lajre. ■
tr-vsonabl* tKM
Ittcnded to.
|c unded. .CHf.
ZETTB.-
Criminal! to la ‘1
(.-“<1
Trials, CrlmteM
aip. together *W
> be found in as;
hr six month*; I*
trite their M»«*
I reside plohW
tI.L t CO-
dice Gazette.
, York CVtjr.
i & Co-,
ass.
Hoona.
AL jGITIES.
fictions mado-
L-.nd, withont to
fr.tes. [l-tf
OLLIttATS-
llr. Hunting
it to all coil**
r.t) at hi* re*
Holliday**’"*'
'
I,
H. Hilcmao.
[fokjia
b) Wasbinfc <»*
Lp Soap, F*l»
-fc'ilHCSn’B
kLITY OF
hi, .mdReWi 1
bI.MAKKK,
U<;iiir Tctnpl*'
hmnrf
teuß’S- '
t’s POM*
fic.forsaleW
p. IvESidA^,
CONFBO'
Y LEPB’g:
Lvd (tffi
McCRIJM & PERN,
YOk 4.
, - \ - «-
1 7 n w conM of garter Sfessloia
!• of Combria County.
I, matter <tf the Cbnlcdid -SUd&nJi*- tto*p Oumif-
Eitction,Md m the ixemd Xuu
toy two6er> I#®*-: - • 1 •
OpIKIOX Of THE COWKT.
■ TiTLOEi r* X • ■ ■■ n
I On the 16th of October last, the petition of
I Lewis Cassiday,. J. P. Bcott, and twenty others,
I representing themselwto be tpalificd electora
l o f the county of Cambria, formally
[ m of their hwhber, was presented to this
[court, complaining of dn undue .election for
[county commissioner, at the lutgeneralclec-
Etion: and .Betting forth “ that Abpl Lloyd and
[Lewis Fisher, both citizens and-dectors pf said
county, were sotorally voted-for at the said
[election in connexion with said offieft. and as it
Ui poars by the return of the return judges of
[tiidcoanty.of Cambria filed of record “in” this
[>■ court, on the 15th day oflpctober, A.,«; v
|:858, the .said I<ewis Fisher received two thou
l.-an# uJjdf tiz vote*, and the said Abel Lloyd ro-
Ice Wed eighteen hundred, aid ninety-/our votes, ami
[the said Lewis Fish#, thoreby ,having a majority
[of one hundred and twelve (112) votes, over the
[tud Abel Lloyd, was - thereupon declared duly
selected to the r ofcce of county-commissionr
|tr ” and further oomplaiaing aud setting forth
I “that the said election was fraudulently and
[unduly held and conducted in the township of
I Wiuhinglon, in the saidicounty of Cambria, and
I tli»i a large manlier of illegal arid fraudylcni votes
Icfff i’oled thereat for the said Lewis Fisher ; and
I further, that the return of the said election, so
Its aforesaid held In the said township!of Wash
| legion, was falsely and fraudulently mndo to
I the said return judges! and , that thereby :tke tgid
\AhtHjloyd was unlawfully defeated.of the said
|osm of county commissioner:’’ and further
[ “ that the officers who conducted'said election
[in tlie-TSOid township of Washington, as well by
| nets of omission os commission, violated the'
[icvend duties imposed upod them in that bc-
I half by the laws .of..the, commonweaHUaf .Peiqa-i
[lylnnia : ’ and .specifying, under this general'
[tllcgation, amongst oilier things, 1. Gross ir
| regularities and frauds In the organization of
[the hoard of olficers.aad in the,manner of eou-
Iducting the election of Washington township:
|l'h:ita large number of illegal voteswerc poll
[edit the said election, and that they were polled
| with dhe knowledge and'eonnivance of the offi
[cers who conducted the said election, And,
[under jins last general allegation, It was speci
| ficd among other things, thnt legal voters in
[suit! township “voted more than.once;” that
["a largo number of hon-remdeiits,’’ and “m :
[large number of unnaturalized foreigners vo
| ted j’fond that their votes were received, conn
|ted, jmd returned: that “there were votes re
| turned and names on the list of voters of per*
Upas dead, and who have removed from the
pwnihlpV’anjd “that there arc names bn the
bt of.voters of persons who do not reside, .and
[uevtr have resided in Washington township or
Lny where else.” \
[ Incredible as St seemed that there could be!
[persons in Washington township, not only snffi]
[cicntly depraved, but silly enough to undertake
[to concoct and carry oat a sefaemo of fraud so
[poss and startling, in a rural district, top,
[ where it might easily, and would certainly, be
I detected, the petition was signed by more than
I the number of electors requiFcd by\thc act of nh
[tcably, many of them known to tlic, court, -oild
[known to be of the-most respectable citizens of’
[the county, and verified by two of them, and it
jvu an imperative duty to institute an investi
[ ption, and appoint a time for the hearing.—
| "e accordingly fixed the first day of thu present
[term for such hearing; and, os we deemed it
| utterly impracticable to hear the witnesses at
[tbe bar of the court, since it would probably
[occupy the greater portion of the whole term,
[when we would hare issues to try in tho Oyer
land Terminer, Quarter Sessions, and Common
| *®d other busincas bolonging to the term
I which could not be deferred, and as we had ho
[doubtwhatever of onr right and power to do so,
f?Pb|?ted Philip S. Noon, £sq., a member
|° this far in whose capacity and integrity we
I repowtj fenfire confidence, a commissioner to
[ttke charge of the ballot-boxes, and to take and
[report the evidence and all the facts in the case,
[he was sworn in open court at the timo .if his
[appointment; was clothed with all the power’
[we were authorized to coufcr.upon.him to com
pel the wi&^eSjthe.production
rf P®P C «, &c.j at- suqß/imoand place.as he
would fit, and of which'he should giye due no
tice, and to report fixed
~r .hearing, the twti^»^k#rfind all facts
elicited by him' touchfcrisaid coniplaint. His:
['Pott, the reading, four
hours of ouj; time, of the
pudustiy, and' wlth he ex
ocuted our Commiraion ; lApdjthi# we are happy
w bo able .to sny .is ju#)y accorded to him by
tcc counsel, on bolfi'bideipryrio h.avo argued the
case. AudAow,afbSr th|tBfotemeni atidhistory,
pnt, and.after having llefcsncd paftently an en
j';re day Jo. of it by counsel, ivre
proceed ta pfonqjm®® opinion of
ijic Judges, upon
lac merits; ttfw*i«o^p]i^^ ; ;r; ' \
The evidence try the com
pissioner. ,
j iirest oppo#pnily--to ,|^i)iit' ; j)arttea. to adduce
[their evidened, Ano-haye^^^nbodicd,id the re-'
[port, and. upon .vcarefal ckihaioation and cross
[mtnmatihn df
[ M c f a rly,,in IlfSfiMt gross ir
|«guUritka (to call .them by-no harsher term)
|’ n Ute organization df the boafil, and In the
[oanner of conducting the election.
L,& Cqntyell, thejudge,,
r •* <CTa *^ r 'M .^ c Bwoatti before the
the day before the elec-
I tim ’ f®?. Jua rcsigriatinn lhe : morning of
t
Wld . mast
taking '
* j Q dg<Jvbefbro his resignation
accented !!,/- e \ cted or have been
:. w . Ka ® been actin e as
'icnpacitoteAiA ■•v 01 J a testimony shows, was
I in the 0 Act os one of the officers'
I ns •' Gc-jsman, whp.
I °ne of imd-also ineligible, Was !
I 'Weterf Th<s two In- 1
|Cnntv»mfiv 0 /.n;h6m,WiiB appointed by Mr.
I Wn hf kliohacl Moyers who hhd
I Pears t* u.** ? 18 a P^ n g Election, and who ap-
I Bi'l - fi t the election on that day
I to r who Can neither rend
I ‘ n -ctnn(>V»;v^jv l ’ Pf course, were utterly
I l hela» *r?® bft *3s®tho duties enjoined by
1..-.thtfit. were esamiued. by the
[ ,!le Germ an inteipyoter. One of
it Goonr* 1 ?"*» hoard were sworn by F.
cnee bo* cummisaioh, though ho had
-a a Justice of the Peace, had expired,
•'---- •
: and be had no. authority whatayer .to administer
the oath. Snob was' the tboord/of officers and
its‘organization! Its modo T or procedure show
ed-a-still wider deviation from the requirements
of thedaw. No. naturalization papers, as it ap
pears by the evidcnce.wereiuquired for or pro
duced that ; diiy: v no one who presented himself
as a vote/, though more than one half of
who Apparently votedoonldlegally do so with
out such examination, was sworn or .examine#
as tO' his right to vote: no list was kept, or if
kept, preserved, as required by the law, to
show; who voted “on age,” or upon proof ofthd
payment of a “tax:” the votes waren either rei
ceivcd, called out, or counted, in the.manner
enjoined by law. Xho Assessor whose duty it
is made by the law to.atteud and be present
-with .the .hoard - through, the day, when he ap
peared, there to discharge that duty, was order
ed out of the room by one of the officers, and
yet when tho time come to count off the votes,
Uichard White, A. M. White, Francis. McCon:
nell, and P. M. George,.the non-commissioned
Justice who had sworn.them, were all, contrary
to tho practice everywhere else, and totheim-'
pressioa of every body as to what.is right and
proper, admitted into the room. And when all
was over, .the explicit and important require
ment of the as a safe-guard
against fraud by providing evidence for its de
tection, —that the ballots, list of taxables, &c.,
should be put into the boxes and sealed,, and
presorted in the specific manner directed, was
utterly disregarded; and tho tickets for the
office in controversy wore produced- tp the com
missioner .by tho aforesaid F. M. George, in an
old segar-box, without even a lid upon it All
these things appear in thcevidcnce. .In a word,
if Squire George had sworn these officers to dis
regard ever/ requisite of the buy, Instead of j
swearing them to observe it, they wpqld, merit
more .-commendation for thoir fidelity,to their
oath, .if not to the lvw.‘ It is to be observed,
' also, that none of the officers ci!;n»ined,can or
will give any account' of the Ugt of taxables
which they had before them; and that neither
of the clerks could be found.Cr procured-to tes
tify before the commissiqner. andthatine of
t|iem, Gcisman, in the opinion of the officer, and
ns is evident from what the offic^states,leva-'
ded the'process of the law/
These deviations from the rcquircmci
the law are clearly proven and not denied
[they are defended or attempted to be cxc
on the ground that the several provisions 9
act of assembly violated, or not complied,
are merely directory, and that whilst d
tares, from them may be censurable, and
subject the officers to penalties, the result,]
appear to be right, should not, on that grai
be disturbed. As to some things, and \
there Wijo allegation or
ly those who bad a right to vote appear to ll
voted, and legal votes only appear to; Jiavp I
received and returned, this andoubtedly i ar
rcct dloncst citizens should npt-bd.depri cd
of their suffrages on account of ft ipere Slip or
on jncrely technical grounds,/oi’ fpJrtunsubsiaa-,
tiat reasons. A failure onthepartof nlestion
officers to comply with what is merely formal
in the directions, of the law, where nothingraoru
is charged or provenj shoyld-.not bc setted upon
v as ground or occasion to cast away lead votes.
Bat to this there must be some limits There
are provisions of the law which must he re
garded not ,sfts :matter of form merely! but-of
substance, Those wlucl* fix thetime atk place
of holding an election; or define the number
and qualifications of officers j pr how vote! shall
be cast, as by ballot or otherwise; or prttsribo
the mode in which ballots shal,! be received,
counted, and returned, and the tests whioWshall
be applied to persons presenting thcmaelvU as
voters,, .arc the means cstablished'and fixul by
the law of ascertaining, and constitute thderi
terion, and the only criterion of deterhlang,
what are Ugcl votes. Iso votes except by bdlot,
and no ballots, except those received at the
time and place, in the ntahher, and by the offi
cers appointed dr chosen and qualified as Ac
quired by the law, can be legally recognizedns
such : and, unless thus ascertained to bo le'gil,
they must,bo'rejected as illegal. \
In the pieseat case, it cannot surely be sail
that no substantial requirement.of the law was
disregarded in the organization of the board of
officers, and in the mode and ,manner of conduc
ting the election. Some" things complained of,
and proven, wo might view and treat as irregu
larities merely. TVc might, for instance, over
look the fact;that the oath was administered to
the officers by one who had no more right to
administer it than any other citizen of the town
ship. if there was -reason to suppose they be
lieved at tho time ho had, and therefore as
sumed the moral if not the legal obligation of
an oath. But two of them, at least, were dis
qualified to act; one of them not ignorant or
forgetful of the fact. ’but as his own testimony
shows, wilfully intruding .himself info tho place;
and every required test of the qualification of
voters, and of the legality of the votes received,
or returhfed, was disregarded. In fapt there
.was scarcely a direction of the law strictly, and
in all things complied with. cxcept that which
required the votipg ,to,.be jby ballot, and that
fixing the time pad placeOf holding the olec
filbO. And, if this were the whole case, we do
p°t sce how we could,avoid the'conclusion, that
the election in that waannduo aud.il-
Icgal, and to be treated as null and void.
■, But it is not stall necessary, to rest our deci
sion oh .tliatj ground. ilh addition .to the nu
nisrpas; wrbguWrities noticed, which,
lhoug|,&>y Mrt .aud:w6 ,think would .bosuffi
qiqnt the.election, might not crun
ih&tc if nothing appearedjwfcich
disclosed a, Jpaqtive’ to wilful lawlessness and
fyiiud, yjQ have .before, ixs .the‘most conclusive
evidence that more than one half of the names
of-voters on,the list were fictitious, and the
cowcsp’ohding votes retarded, fraudulent; " 1
.. .The sfirst prominorit fact going to proto this,
which arrests the attention, is the discrepancy
between the list of taxablcs and the list of vo
ters. It is well known that every list of taxa
, bids; coinprises the names of females, aliens,
[ and non-resident properly holders who liriva .no
I right to vote, It is well known, moreover, .that
| all who have a right .to vote, are noverat any
! election, i These together seldom fail to oiit
| number largely those whose names are put on
what is called the “ten dey list,” dnd th.63e.
who vote “ on age so that it very rarely hap
pens that the list of voters equals the list of
taxablcs. Generally, it fallp far short of it.—
And oi this, every, one can be convinced by in
stituting a comparison with respect to all of
the other election districts in the county.-
Here, however, fficre arc 311 taxablcs " while,
.on. the list of voters we have 437 ; ap
excess' ; of 12C ;. dr pidre than 40 per (ient-.1-r
‘.This fact alonp, unexplained, is convincing.
proof of something foul and fraudulent.' * v ; 5 ■
But further,—of these 437 names on the list
. A
ALTOONA, PA., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1859. , !
of voters, we. findfn the asscssriaect, or list of
texables, only JiS; showing that no less than
279, if voted tat all, done so oh
a residence of ien days and a proof of the pay
raeht of “ tax,” or on age:; and, if-so, it was
the the officers to scrutinize, require the
specified proof, and preserve the evidence of
their right to vote.
“ JVb -perton" the act of assembly expressly
declares, “ shall be admitted' to t}ote tchose name
ts not contained 'in -the list of taxable inhoiitants
furnished by the commissioners, ” tpiless he make
. proof .of his having paid a state or county tax
within two years, or the required proof of his
right, to, vote by being on between the
age- of twenty-one .and years ;
“ it is further;expressly required
and provided, “ the name df the person so ad
mitted to vote shaikhs inserted ih the alphabet-
list by the inspectors' and ainoto made -op
posite there to by writing thqword “ tax,” if he
shall, be admitted to vote by, reason of hiving
paid a tax, or .tbe word“age,” if he shall bc
admitted to vote on account ofhis age; andiu
cither case thp name df such; voter shall he cal
led opt to tiie clntkSj Wlio shallimake the like
notes on tho list of voters kept hy them.” By
another sect ion of the act, it is made tho duty
of each inspector who shall receive the ticket o’f
nn elector, to call out aloud the natde of such elec
tor which shall be inserted by the blork sin sepa
rate lists, and thd name shall be repeated by each
of them, and the inspector shall‘insert the let
ter V in the margin of the alphabetical list op
posite the name of such voter ; ai)d, if such elec
tor sltall have been sicom or affirmed, or produced
a certificate or other evidence at before provided of
having been naturalized, the inspector shall also
\nolc the same on the margin of such list, and token
{proof of rexidenef is made shall also pole the name
of the person making siich proof\
While, therefore, the law explicitly declares
that “no person shall {be admitted to vote whoso
nam.c is not contained in the li-fi. of taxable inhabi
tantswithout making tho ispecifiod proof of
Ibis right ,to vote, add without Mich his vote
Iwould }: bd illegal, it provides the evidence of
compliance with this indispensable requisition
bf the daw, ' viz ; the enjoinefi notings of the offi
■fei s upon the lists. And it i Explicitly provides
/or the careful presciwation of this evidence for
the purpose of settling any or contro
versy respecting the legality o£ such votes; —
“As soon as the election shall be finished, the
tickets, list of taxables, oho" df the lists of vo
ters, and one of, the certificates of the oath, or
affirmation, taken and subscribed-by the inspec
tors, judge and clerks, shall bo caircfully collec
ted and deposited in one or in are pf the ballot
boxes, and such box or boxes being closely
bound round with tape, shall be scaled by the
inspectors and judge of the: ejection, and to
gether with the remaining ballot-boxes, shall
within one day afterwards bp delivered by ono
of the inspectors to'the nearest justice of the
.peace who shall keep such boxes containing the
tickets and other documents, to-answer the call
of any person or tribunal authorized to try the
merits of such elect ion; and tjic other list of vo
ters, tally papers, and certificates, shall bo .en
closed by the said inspector and judge in a seal
ed cover directed to the pfothonotary of the
court of common pleas of the county, and shall
hy ono of them be delivered into his office with
in three days thereafter whoa the same shall be
filed.” \ ; .
Live
I
These lists, then, should .contain the evidence
of the right of the 279 whose; names are not on
the list of taxables, to vote. They ore the evi
dence which.the law requires, and their preser
vation was a positively enjoined, duty for the
very purpose for which we hero want them.—
But the list of taxablqs which should have been,
was not thus preserved. Iff cannot be found ;
and the officers can or will give’ account of
it. And the other lists contain no nolings by
the officers which show that; any; of these per
sons were examined, or produced any proof of
their right to vote. On the contrary, it appears
in the testimony taken and reported that no die
teas sxsorn and examined xtpdn oath, and that no
naturalization papers Were or produced.
The conclusion is unavoidable, that the 158
whose names arc found on the assessment list,
were the only qualified' electors there. And this,
by the Way, accords'with the testimony of some
of tnc witnesses who estimated the number of
persons voting that day, at about that number;
ns wed as with other evidence, to the same
po/ut, yet to be noticed. We have no evidence
ofjthe qualification of any others ,• nay, the evi
dence which the law requires i as to the 279
w»oso names are not on the assessment, has no
edstencc, aud we are warranted in’ the conclusion
tVat, if they were there, and did vote, their votes
rcrc illegal.. •
■ The ruling and icasonihg of the court of
Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia,| in the District
Attorney case, arc so precisely in point here,
that we extend our own by quoting at length
that part of their opinion.
•\ “The alphabetical lists produced in tins case,”
s'kys that court in relfttioa|to- that case, “ for
the divisions enumerated, (showed that, as far;
as these lists wcre coacernqd, the inspectors had
ntlerly neglected or. evaded;the duty which the
lav requires them to perform'. No one is mark
! cd admitted because he had paid 1 a tax, or voted
on agel and no oath appears to have been ad
ministered to any one, or any other proof rc T
quired os to qualification. , If this omission or
neglect extended to a: few yptos i only, it might
be regarded as a raerc irregUlariiy, affording no
reason to infer that the election officers acted in
bad faith, os was said in Boileau’s case. Bat
when the omission extended tj) hundreds of
pmes, in some cascs to nchrly bpo half” (more
than one halfiherc) “ of all the jvotes received,
the conduct of tho officers jean ofilg be regarded
as an intentional neglect of Bidr sworn duty ; such
d neglect, to call it by no haraheir'name, us ap
pears to bo uttbrly inobnsifcttßt >ilh that good
faith and integrity which is required to render
the proceedings of elcctiott officers reliable, and
Without the appearance of which, the evidence
is unworßiglof
these reasons, which are entirely consistent
with tha-rule applied ip all: former sh£eS, that
the evidence offered row* l . h#. r ®? fr°p circum.-
stances'savouri'ng of fraud ot contrivance, toe
feeihouiid to disregard entin&y > Hs.Mtd<inee of $£
lids df cotes 'rettv&sUVh aph cif |Jhe : eight divid
jftn» ’named, sd far as Spfry name is concerned
*w]iich ddeiJiiot appear on the list of taxahlts.”—
Aud alltsdch votes (oyex l|00) v wbre accprdingly,
thrown .opt, -• ' --'i ’v
; Ws arrive at the same conclusion. upon dif
ferent ground; whilst thoi jreaHbps whlch dnfiu
enced the rhiladclpUia c6hrt, liaiJ: mbrc forco iu
this case, than in that.' ■ Fdrj both reasons,
therefore, the names on the list! of voters, 1
contained in i6e
jobtod as spuriods. Andrew we might rest
this case: suppose Wdimerbly treat this as
affording a reasonable presumption that no oth
er votes, were legally polled, thah evidenced by
[INDEPENDENT IN EVERYTHING.}'
f. \
'-.f
*hq official. list; ia themostfa
vorablo. view' of the 1 case" ..for -the,’respondent
which c&n possible be. taken, "would cast . upon,
him, and those who would.defend or stand forth
as the apologists ofthat day ’s work, , the onus of
showing that these 279 names, are the names of
persons who were at the polls, qualified to Tote,
and did rote on that’ dayat least to show,
that they were living men, resident at that time
within the township of Washington. Nor, in
this, do we exact of them whdt is either unrea
sonable or difficult
If these 279 names are the names of inch who
were in the township 'bn'that day, under cir
cumstances which gave (hem any pretext tb
claim the right of voting Umre; nothing would
be easier than to show it by affirmative evidence.
Of this, any quo can readily .convince himself
by recurring to the list of, voters- at the same
election,in jusosvn borough or towhship. Let
him take it up, and enquire how long it would
take him witnesses-who know all upon it
that he does not know hunaelL Let any one
fry it- }XP blight not be so easy, wo admit, to
find persons, who were not there! But any one
can readily see howvery easy it is to find out
any and CvCryy actual president in a township
containing only 311 taxable inhabitants. While,
moreovety it was an easy task to show it, if.
these 279 wore actually residents of Washington
township on that day, there existed the strong
est motive to do so, if it could be done. A fraud
of such character, and nwgnitude as here charg
ed if established, must fix and fasten upon all
implicated in it, the blackest stigma. To prac
tice a deliberate fraud upon the right of suf
frage, cheat honest citizens out„of thjeir votes,
and poison and pollute the very fountain of gov
ernment, is moral treason. ?To one surely, who
has any regard for social duty, any self-respect,
or any appreciation of tlio respect of others,
would be willing to incur the odium of being
suspected oven of complicity in such a crime,
if ho could possibly avert it. Nor is hc exposed
alone to the denunciation of public opinion.—
The law expresses its condemnation, and threat
ens its penalty. In addition to-the specific pen
altics for the violation of particular provisions
of the act of assembly, it is enacted, that “if
any inspector, judge, or dork of ah election shall
be convicted of any wilful fraud in the discharge
of his duties, ho shall undergo an imprisonment
for any term not less than three nor more than
twelve months, and bo fined in any sum not less
than one hundred- dollars, nor more than five
hundred dollars, and shall be for seven years
thereafter disabled from holding any office of
honor, trust or profit in thisCommowealth, and
shall, moreover, be disabled for the time' afore
said, \from giving his vote at any general or
special election within this commonwealth.
Here, indeed, arc suggested powerful reasons
for the production of evidence, if within the
reach - or power of tho parties implicated, to rb
pel any presumption, or even suspicion of fraud.
And, as wchave seen, it'was easy to do so, if
there was no -frond. And yet wo have not one
word of l evidence produced or offered to show
that thesp 279 names returned as legal voters,'
were in the township at the time of the election.
We learn fropi the report of the commissioner
tiiat he proclaimed Jus readiness, to toko on
their part, any evidence they might offer; and
jet none is produced. Nor, when the time for
this complaint arrived, were we asked
for further time to procure such evidence. We
have heard no allegation eycn, that such evi
dence exists. It is a rule of law, and of reason,
“ that if on the supposition a charge or claim
is unfounded, the party against whom it is made
has evidence within his reach by which he may
repel that offered to his prejudice, his omission
to do so, supplies a strong presumption that the
xharge or claim is well founded ; as it would be
contrary to every principle of reason, and to all
experience of human conduct, to form any oth
er conclusion. How, then, are we to regard
this, but ns a tacit admission of what it cannot
be doubted is the truth, that these 279 names
are fictitious, and the corresponding votes re
turned, a fraud ? •
Bat this is not all, Tho evidence docs not
stop here, although wo might have paused, and
disposed of the case, long ere this. The wit
nesses, several of them in number, whose atten
tion was called to this subject, are unable to
give Any account of these 279 persons, excep t
that it is stated by a witness of one, that pome
six'or seven years ago, he was at his funeral ;
or, that, of a few others it is said, they once
lived in the township, but have left it; or that
they live elsewhere. This is all the information
obtained of 275 of these 279, after diligent in
quiry, and actual search, by tboso -who would
be likely to know, and could easily Had them,
if there. '' " ■ i
Arthur Storm, wjio, as he testifies, has resid
ed in Washington township fourteen years, and
who has been constable, assessor, and collector,
and who has had ample ,mcaps uni', opportunity
of knowing the -people of that township, with
this long list of names before him, and when his
attention is particularly Called to every name
upon it; one after another, knows none of them,
except three, ns residents of Washington town
ship, or «.s in Washington towhship, at the time
of the election. A few are recognized as per
sons who resided there once, but who live ih
other places noiv. Of most of them, —of all df
them, indeed, but a very few—'he has nb
knowledge whatever.
James Conrad who has been a resident of
Washington township for nine years,—who was
collector of school tax for 1852 and 1858, col
lector of county poor, and State tax for 185 G,
and:assessor the same. year,.and who made the
assessment in' 1857, is examined upon oath, and
as he passes from name to name’oh' the long
list, can give no more information respecting
them than Mr. Storm. Of all of theto, except
a few, he has no knowledge,
Matthew ,M. Adams, too, another intelligent
witness, who was born within the limits' of the
towhship, and has lived there all hid life, over
forty years', examines .this, list o£ names in tho
same manner, and with the 'same result. His
testimony corroborates that of Mr. Storm and
Mr. Conrad, i. With the exception of ai small
number whom ho .recognizes as having resided
ip the towhship at a foymer-period; or as now j
residing elsewhere* he lms no knowledge of
any of the naVhes upoh the long list.; .The mass
of them, fce dbos hot'kriow at* all; • ? 1 <
Jacob Baigoon; too, an old and .veritable cit
izen of the Ibvmshlp—wjib, he .swears, hhs
lived there twenty-two years, who hos heon su
jpervisorslx yeara, assessor six years, and over-,
. peer of the poor sir years,, and :has been a col
lector of tax; wlib sweats that ho has a general
acquaintance with tho laud-holders in the town
ship; and who shears,’ as well he might, that
.‘“it wojtld $0 ii inyatery to him if all these names
could -betters'-in that township-; withodt hlhi:
knowing iV’—and, that ho “ could, not come, tn
tho belief that they were there unbeknown to
when the list is submitted to bis exam-
5 •
> *'•
■ ' I.' *
inatioD, can only recognise' awof th* nhn|**
upon it | .
wiflii
sodjiTty* *K« '«oaauj»joner, ahd phtmto the;
haiida of constable AL S, Harr, ,to bo served.—.
In Ins effort to serve it, be travoled day after
day trough; the whole township, and every port
of it, aocompspied by Arthur Storm; erf olid 4
citizen and well acquainted inthatownalup, and;
with its citizens, as wehavo noQ°f—
testifies that, after the most diligent search, he
only found four persons answering to names bn
theiistj . .
>Ve.have then, all this additional evidence,--’;
(and, if this were all, who could entertain. a
doubt upon the question?—) that 275 of .the
279 on the list of voters, which are not found on
(he assessment list, or list of taxablas, are notiin,
.the township, r.nd were not there on-tLe day of
the election. This is called “ negative testimony”
by the respondent’s counsel, because it is here*
introduced to show, that those alleged voterb.
were not and are not in the township. It wo hid'
be of innative t estimony, if adduced to show.that
they ww, and are, in the township. The force,
of it, is the same in either case, the result de
pending on the fact as it exists. ' Tho propor
tion is embcaccd if the inquiry, wsbb ami auS
they th£R£ ? h'o one can doupt for a moment
thht Hie knowledge of Storm, Conriid, Adding,
and Burgoon, of the township and its citizens,
would have discovered, and the diligent search
of Harr Storm have found if not all, at least
tho greater portion of this large number' of al-;
loged voters, if in the township, and to be found
there. Had they been there, the testimony would
have shown it, and would be affirmative. Bad
they been there, this evidence would have prov
en it, instead of proving, as it does, that they
were not. \ Whatever you choose tp call it, it
h is therefore, the force i f positive or affirmative
testimony. The existence of 275 fbtbra; iti a
township containing 311 taxable habitants; as
we have already noticed, and ns every one feols
and knows, is very easily shown.; An appeal tp
to tho knowledge of old citizens,'and diligent
search, mast and will discover them, if there
ns it must fail to do it, if they ar£ sot there.—
The truth is, it is impossible, in a district iiko
this, to practice a fraud apoo the ballot-box
l;ke tliis fraud—by introducing 275 unreal or
fictitious voters—and hide it. ‘The attempt is
as silly as that of the ostrich to-conceal its huge
body by thrusting its head into the sand.
But it is unnecessary, as it is sickening, to
dwell upon the evidence in this case. The large
and suspicious discrepancy between the list of
taxables and tho list of voters—the fact that only
158 of riie 43< names returned as voters arp
found on the assessment list, and that, conse
quently, 279 of them had no right to vote with
out being sworn or examined by the board the
absence, if not the suppression, of the evidence
required by law that this was done—nay, the
fact,'affirmatively proven, (so to speak) that it
was no, done, —the total absence of any evidence,
or of any attempt or offer, cn the part of the
respondent, afjtbough incumbent upon him and
them who would sustain or defend a result thiis.
hnpeachcd—when, if it had been the truth, it
was so easily shown, and so much depended
upon it, —that these 279 names representedpersons
in the township af the time;— the fact, on tho con
trary, that old jeitizens of the township, with
tho most ample means of knowledge, know noth
ing ol them, and that the most diligent search
cannot find them :—these prominent facts and
features af the case, wc say, impress visibly and
indelibly upon it the impress of fraud. We.
treat it ns a fact, brought out by tho| evidence
into clear day light, so clearly'established as
not to admit of a moment’s doubt, that 275 of
these names on the list of voters, are fabricated
or fictitious, and the corresponding number of
ballots that kind of fraudulent votes. This and.
this only, accounts satisfactorily for the very
suspicious irregularities and departures from:
the requirements ot the- law in organizing the 1
b|>ard, and conducting the election, which, though
so numerous and glaring theft it would die hard:
to impute thein to ignorance or negligence,
might possibly, if tho result appeared to bo right,
be ascribed to some other than an intentionally
corrupt or fraudulent motive. Itis plain, how
ever, that they were “means” Adapted to the
attainment of this “ end and part and parcel
of one fraudulent transaction.
Jt requires; therefore, very little calculation
to dispose of this complaint upon its "merits ”
In any view of the evidence, we would be bound
to treat the names on tho assessment, —158,
as the only legal votes cast. It is,contended ozi
the part of the complainants, upon the,evidence
adduced, that 70 votes were actually cast for
Abel Lloyd. It is shown, at all events, beyond
doubt ox cavil, that he did receive theuumber
returned for him—44. This would leave ll'4i
instead of 338 rotqmad, for Lewis Fisher.;—-
This wbuld elect My. Lloyd by ovc? 150 votes.
But the facts in o»ir judgement, disclose such
fraud as renders tho whole poll undue and void.
Throwing away, therefore, the w|ole vote of
Washington township, the rcsuit.stiinds thus
Abel L10yd,.... 1850
Lewis Fisher/. ig22
Lloyd’s majority.
To tLe case thus made o\lt by the coraplain
ants, by more than sufficient evidence, the only
answer by the respondeat, and thogij who aw
behind him, is a motion to qnaih the p«titiomahd
proceedings, for three reasons ass%ned in ;a
paper filled since the case came on for alrga*
.ment; and'which, reversing thp ordpr m yduph
they appear in the paper filed, W; shall nd#
take up and consider. -
1. Ono of the reasons is, “that the petition
does not set forth tho existence of foots whiehi
if true, would change the result pffh«' jg^6q|’?
No court,' we agree, should entertain 0 com
plaint, and subject parties to the trouble and es
pense of an invegtigation. whon the. result upon
t!»e face Of tho complaint,' would be fruitless,-
This reason, however, Is filed and urged 'upon
the attention of the court, after the labor lids
been undergone, upd when there is evidence bp
fore Us which proves beyond-a doubt Tjhat does
change the result as it respects the yoto- foy:
county commissioner. .Whatever ebneideratlon
wo might hate felt inclined to give thfe hid it
been urged in’ an earlier -stage' of: the- proceed*
ings, we would hesitate to arrest ;thjnp now. for
thnt reason, if tnle. But is it true.?' -The cojUr
plaint,’ already 1 'quoted, asserts that “a' lafgn
■number of ilitgai andfraudulentvoies vefe polled
for Lems.; Fisher, and that the return of sod
electioa'soasnforcsaid held in tho said
ly made to the said return judges, and that
&erd>£fy i dqfeah
ed of'thi siasf o Js e „ °f’ ewnty. commissioner
This we think sufficiently explicit; particular
ly atthis stage ortho case, when wo have be
fore ns a superabundance of proof to substaUtl*-
ate the complaint.
AND PROmETOBiI/"
i .*3 -?'
:A
: 2 - Another of th« «>««*«« v, ~»ytybrdte ‘
offraud»jnTeguWUies*4e., battur***
tton, are vague and general lp^en^aj»o4s£»'
r S*? ,
■‘S™ 0,0 as. they or* madecotw
evidence ;;but itwa» not; requisiteMttlbew
shQuld.be. ,Jh®. different binds of fraud and
m general term* it Is luqmcttaibl^i^Hd^
<y, to, bemere epeoifitw Ik Jus been admitted 7
Jn Me alignment the* itvWaanot pntetioable. or'
tosetout the namtt of fflegalvtiteiSt l
although it, Mb . beea very • earnestly- fataeS: 5
that, as van eweptiof or i»Mk Mould ;
Qcpt»M l ruk, the names ©r<W «iM’a.
Icged^Jajs
Aa, however, the votes of not more Man heo
thre i *»<* P¥k'Kf* W#‘ct the ,
appear |o havobeeu returned, that* wX
qmtcranimmaieriad averment, Knd might have
; been at any time heretofore, or might now be -
stricken out, without at all affecting the result
The mass of these voters wore happily
exempt from;
‘ 111 , that *«»«« 18 hdr Jlliey uppwr to
have been v , ! , *
3. A.tbirdrcftsen, ■;'&s' one wiloh has heeo
arguai imd Mged with more-' earneataeas tub
the - “ that the Mtition*liiintW»Mis
as rtauipediby the : Mt of
bec% 'mnWiMNN^PViHw
; townships? connby.” •
It is painful to find it so fully yoHfied by the
evidence in the case. Still, difficult as it is to '
treat seriously a incre fcohmOal olueQtton‘inter
posed to the judgment of a court in « case
olcarly made oat upon Us, merits, tl»»a*t ma
king such objection, especially when iflsbMul].
te«
fair consideration of his plea in arrest of judfr
iccnt. ' ,
i 'Hie .petition is signed by twenty-two wkl
represent themselves as qualified electors of thtf >
county of Cambria; and verified by two of
.The evidence shows that one of these two,J.'p ; *
Scott, ayoung man sbont lhree yttJlW 1 -
'ngp, was not'logally. cutitled.tq voteqa
because, and only because,-ho bad not priM ft
state or county tax within two years; although* •
as it appears, ho did vote'in Washington town
ship on that day. As it was his first vote dL
pending on the previous payment of a tax/wa
ns his father owned property in the township;
it is not difficult to suppose that ho may have
voted thoughtlessly; and the offieertof «K|
election whose swop doty it was to Inqqjre abd '
sec to it, are moiw censurable" than ho. Btxt
the question isnot, whether he did vo&bf had
a right to yote, ,on that dtiy. ©no the wasnot
at the election at all, if hc ! had a right to vote
there, it cannot be doubled, ; might sigtr or Veri
fy such a petition, This young man possessed '
all the general and inherent qualifications of a
voter. He was not * minor,"an alien, or a nob
resident. He labpred cnly undcr thecoanol on
accidental disqualification arising from hot hay,
iog f-a-d a tax. If, however, any oitizCn of thd
township who was not; at the election on that •
day, whether he had paid tax within two, yean
or not, if otherwise in air respects entitled to
vote, and who pqight qualify-himself to vote '
fore another election, or at any time, by tho
payment of his fix, had verified the petition,
whose deliberate judgment would conclude that ’
he was not “a qualified elector” within the
meaning of the'act of assembly, upon a reason
able construction of it?—or that a petition
on that ground, and especially after iba
truth of the complaint is fully established,
should be quashed?
If the objections to this election suggested
mere irregularities, or what might be considers,
ed undesigned departures from what is merely
directory in the election law, and no fraud were
proven, and no one appeared to hare voted but
thosa who had ,a right to vote, we would feel in*
dined to require the utmost strictness In a pro
ceeding which aimed at overthrowing On election
on technical and unsubstantial grounds. Bni
when gross and flagrant frauds are dearly es
tablished, to require this would'be little less
than to make ourselves partietpa criminis, and
render this court, instead of being what even
court shtfuld bo, “ a place where justice' 1* jbr
dicially administered, a refuge andsaactUaty df'
fraud and crime, . . . . i
We have been told in this case, that foy; pin-.
cecding was got up by disappointedhfece-eeek
ers, and should not, therefore, be encoorogedk
If this were so, it would bat iUastratethCad
age, “ when rogues fall but bonestinen ge'ttbeir ‘
duesand, in the aspect in which it isbefort
us, it would still bo our duty to deal with the
case as made out by the proof, al
ready remarked, however* Wo recognised W this
petition the names of some of the most reaper.;
table citizens of the county '; and we donbt not
they havoboen actuated by the purest aridmost
patriotic' motives. The., necessity of requiring, ■
great strictness and formality iP such complaints,
has also been very strenuously urged uptm bur ■
attention, as of all-absorbing : and' ponusonnt ; '
importance. To give undue consideration to ,
technical strictness here, when the actorabi'
sembly requires usto decide Upbhmefits, though
the effect might only betb stifle wholetom*&£?
vcistigation, *onld bo to “ tithe thomint, com- •
min, and anise,’* and neglect- “ the Weightier
matters qf the ? law.?? Bat to
consideration of.pny -
Urged for quashing this petition, when uq.ef
fect woald -ao to sanction and sustain the ntosl
appalling fraud uponthe ballot-box and with
plenary proof of it staring ns in the face, would
be to “.strain at a gnat, and swallow a cameL;’*
“Courlsof justice,” as Judge Thompson ob
serves in the District Attorney case, ‘.‘would !,
serve te ! loae nil confidence and respect;”—nay/:
wq, add. to .it; would deserve the contempt of ;
if they were astute in dqvisipg. .
technical , finderwhich' thc dearcst ;
of tip peqplq wduld bo destroyed by unworthy'
men.” . ; V
228.
> JThe.only difficulty which wo bnvc foU in this <l
- case, hoabeciiin dctcrtninlngwhctliorit isppf
duty to take other or further "notice of it,thart
-to rocbrdonr judgment upon the *'
1 pwnplaint regas : to the eledion of mmnty .
commissioner. Offences against the latr, .
table in this court, in which the dflfcefs of this
election sure implicated* arc clearly proven In'
the evidence before ns. But whatever acouf t ;
may feet to bp duty, whep such digclosurcjs ,
made against a party in its presence, yet as those :
impeached are not before us, or strictly'pa|tiB|
M proceeding, we deem it proper to ~
<ftnj ulterior notion against them to thosp’to
whom it more appropriately belongs to exert aii -
aptive agency in instituting and carrying on pnb
lio prosooutions for crimes and misdemeanors,—
tht District Attorney, the Grand Jury, and such
private citizens of Washington township, pf the
’a
„ -
vi Si
'jst i^awni 1
• *
z£t tmU 1 ,
-•-
■..«,• •*)! .
•* n ; sfrfeb-'
■• assSu ■
# - ;
-V ■:«
i
1
I
: »
no. a,
W' V3-*