Raftsman's journal. (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, July 28, 1869, Image 1

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

- ft
- r- i
VOL. 15 NO, 46.
T 3
detect gortnt.
A. gentle word is never lost,
Oh cev" lken refuse one;
Itcheersthe heart when sorrow tost,
Ani lulls the cares that braise one;
it scatters sunshine o'er our way,
And torts cur thorns to roses ;
It changes weary night to day,
And ho;.e and love discloses.
A gentle word is never lost
Thy Mien brother needs it ;
How easy and how small the cost.
With peaco and comfort speed it.
Then drive the shadow from thy check,
A smile can well replace it;
Oar voie is music when we spcnK,
With gentle word to grace it.
jrrBKME cornT is easc prfsext. cnitr justice
Aenew, J. delivered the following opin
ion in the case of Patterson et al. vs. Bar
low et al., which decides that the registry
law is constitutional ;
"e regret that the necessity for an imme
diate decision in this case has allowed so
t-hiirt a time for the preparation of our opin
ion, and that the public character of the
question demands a treatment too full to he
compatible with brenty.
The plaintiffs are private citizen!?, elec
tors (if the Commonwealth, taxpayers, and
holder ot real estate in the city of Philadel
phia. Py their bill they ask u-- to deelare
illegal and void an act of the Genera! As
sembly passed the 17th of April, ISfi'J, sup
plemental to the election laws of the Com
monwealth, and to enjoin the Councils, AI
deriiien. Coniini.-sioners, Controller, and
Trex-urer of the city from carrying its pro
visions into effect. The defendants deny
the ."finding of the plaintiffs as proper par
tirs, and the jurisdiction of the court over
the subject. In view of the danger to the
pvif-e and quiet of the people if the consti
tutionally of this law should be left in un
certainly, we shall pass by the question of
standing and jurisdiction in order to reach
the all-important one upon the validity of
the law. In passing them by wc do not
mean it to be inferred that we h:ive not
grave doaSts of the rights of the plaintiffs
to represent the public, and of oar owu
jiiri.-dietion to enjoin against one of the po
litical systems of the State in its entire
scope, because of the invalidity of some of
its provisions. We doubt the right of the
plaintiffs to call for an injunction beyond
that portion of the law which they, as pri
vate citizens, can show to be injurious to
their own rights, and it is more than doubt
ful how far. as private citizens, they can
impting the law in its public aspects, and
a.-W us to rc-!rain its execution on public
jrr:intK This is the only system to regu
Lite eli v'mi intended by the Leg:slature to
be left in force : all laws supplied by it and
all iiieoasistaiit with it beins expressly re
pealed. If. a a court of equity, we can lay
our hands on the whole system, because of
the illega'i.-y of some of its parts, we can on
the eve of any election, arrest the entire
political machinery of the Commonwealth,
which is set in motion by a general election.
This i a stupendous power ; and to see its
true a-pect, we have only to suppose the
set of 1839, and its upplemcnts, to be still
in fnree. and that this bill is filed to enjoin
oint it on the ground of the alleged ille
pl::y of somcof its provisions. As a
ini'-'.K.n of power, wc should have thi same
r'.'lu to enjoin against it, and thus to stop
the wheels of government. See the Slote
i '' MUn'fti'jtyi vs. Andrew Juhnson, 4 11 al-
fil ', .
We eonie now to the important question.
w!:etl,r the act of 17h of April last, called
t!.e n -j: try law. is constitutional? It is
aliii',: 1 that the constitution cannot exe
eute it-!!. and hat the power to regulate
; is a legislative one, which has
a!w:,-i -eu exercised by the General As
"!:! ! -!,ie the foundation of the Govern-xii-mu.
The constitution appoints the time
th. 2. i:,t;:! election, prescribes thequali
fi"ati..i! uf the voters, and enjoins the bal
l"t: and (or ail the rest the law must pro
vile. The precincts and places, the boards
? . !c.-tiou, the lists of electors, whether
"':,-da !i-t of taxablesor registry of voters,
at. J the evidence of persons and qualifiea
'. n.ust all be prescribed bylaw. This
';n i. u.ted legislative power is left by the
"'""s'.iiuiii.n to a discretion unfettered by
"!- or proviso, save the single injunciton.
; .nt elections shall be free and equal."
15.it to wh im are the elections free? They
are f;.-e only to the qualified of the I'oinnion
wevth. Clearly, they are not free to the
ur'Tialified. There mnst be a means of dis
ti!i'u..hiti the qualified from the unquali
-I. and this can be done only by a tribunal
to J- i le. and by evidence upon which a
l'-v;-;oii can DC made. The constitution
K- i,f,i provide these, and therefore the
k'iV.ature umst establish the tribunal, and
the mean of ascertaining who are, and who
arc iit the qualified electors, and must
i-'igate the evidence which shall identify
'i prove to this tribunal the persons and
ina'.'.fieations of the electors.
shall elections be made equal?
dearly by laws which shall arrange all
qualified tic-tors into suitable dirtricts, and
I1 ike their votes equally potent in the clec
11 so tht some shall not have more
T'Jtes than oftiers, and that all shall have an
viual share in filling the offices of the Com-
Mat how shall this freedom and equality
st-curtd? The constitution has given no
fuie and furnished no guide. It has not
id that regulations to effect this shall be
uniform. It has simply enjoined the duty
and left the means of accomplishment to
the Legislature. This discretion, therefore,
belongs to the General Assembly, is a sound
one, and cannot be reviewed by any other
department of the government, except in a
case of plain, palpable, and clear abuse of
the powerwhieh actually infringes the rights
of the electors. It is not possible, iior does
the constitution require that this freedom
and equality of election shall be a perfect
one. No human law, affected, as it must
be, by obstacles and differences of circum
stances, can devise a system of perfect
equality it can only approximate it ; and
mere errors in the execution of the power
cannot make the execution unconstitutional.
Individuals may experience difficulties, and
some may even lose their suffrages, by the
imperfections of the system, but this is no
ground to pronounce a law unconstitutional,
unless it is a clear and palpable abuse'of the
power iu itsexereise. Then, that election
is free and equal where all of the qualified
electors of ihe preiinct are carefully distin
guished from the unqualified, and are pro
tected in the right to deposite their ballots
in safety, and unprejudiced by fraud. That
election is not free and equal where the true
electors are not separated from the false ;
where the ballot is not deposited in safety,
or where it is supplanted by fraud. It is,
therefore.the duty of the Legislat ure to se
cure freedom and equality by such regula
tions as will exclude the unqualified and
allow the qualified only to vote. A free
and equal election is the end ; regulations
to attain it arc the means. If the end be
attained, it is evident no question of con
stitutional law can arise on the uniformity
or diversity of the regulations by which the
end is reached.
Of a necessity, laws passed to promote a
given object must be controlled or modified
by the circumstances surrounding the object,
and must be framed to meet the exigencies
standing in the way of the end to be reach
ed. If uniformity of regulation be unsuited
to different localities, the end must be at
tained by diversity. If, in one part of the
State, a system secures to electors a free
and equal election, but fails to secure it in
another part, because of the difference cf
circumstances, what principle of constitu
tional law makes it unlawful to enact other
provisions to counteract the circumstances
and secure the true purposes of the consti
tution? Good sens;;, pood order, and sound
morality require this diversity of regulation
when it secures the end ; and it is a great
fallacy to substitute uniformity of regulation
for a frt-e and equal alection.
This is not a new question a registry
law for the city and county of Philadelphia
was passed on the 16th of June, 183f. The
list of voters corrected and certified on the
first Tuesday of October, one week before
the election, was made "the only and con
"elusive evidence of thequalirkations of the
"electors thereof, except in the case, of nat
uralization hereinbefore mentioned."
No attempt was ever made to question
the constitutionality of t he registry law of
lS.'MJ, though enacted under the provisions
of the constitution of 1790 now in force. It
was in force when! the convention to amend
the constitution sat in 1S37-S, and entered
largely into its discussions. The attention
of the convention was thoroughly arousec"
to it. In committee of the Whole, on the
comaiittee on the ninth article, Mr. Steri
gere, of Montgomery, moved to amend the
fifih section by adding a provision for uni
formity in regulations for elections. It was
voted down, and when the report came up
on second reading Mr. Sterigere again of
fered it. The amendment will be found on
the 249th page of the eleventh volume of
the debates of the Convention, in these
words: "The fifth section being under
consideration, which reads in words follow
ing, viz: Sec. 5. That elections shall be
free and april, Mr. Sterigere, of Montgom
ery, moved to amend the said section by
adding to the end thereof the words as fol
lows, viz: The election laics shall be uni-
fnrni throughout the State, and no greater
or other restrictions shall be imnosetl upon
the electors in any citif, county, or district
than are imposed on the. electors of every
other city, county, and district."
Mr. Sterigere stated that this amendment
was offered in committee of the whole, and
was rejected by a small majority. John M.
Scott, of the city of Philadelphia, said this
amendment was fully discussed in the com
mittee of the whole. It should be under
stood, he said, that its effect would le to de
stroy the registry laic in the city and county
of Phihulelphia. Mr. Charles Drown of the
county of Philadelphia, said he knew no
reason why the Jaw should be different in
one part of the State from what it is in
another. The previous question was than
called, cutting off the amendment, and was
sustained by a vote of 69 to 42 a number
of the political friends of Mr. Sterigere and
Mr. Brown voting in the majority. Thus
the 5th section of the 9th article was left as
it stood in the constitution of 1790, to wit :
"that elections shall be free and equal."
This was no party vote the relative strength
of parties in the convention being 67 and 66
and it should put an end to all argument
on the constitutionality of the registry law.
The question of uniformity of regulation
was conclusively settled by this vote. The
very purpose of the amendment of Mr.
Sterigere was to destroy the registry law,
then existing under the identical provision
in the constitution of 1790, that elections
shall be free and equal. This purpose the
convention by this vote decided against
uniformity of regulation nd against impos
ing restrictions upon legislative power.
Last year the question upon the power of
the Legislature to pass a registry law was
brought before this court in the case of Page
et al. vs. Allen et al., and a majority of the
court (composed of J ustices Strong, Keed,
and myselfj held that the yower existed ;
but Justice Strong thought the act of 1868
unconstitutional in a single, but essential
particular, by requiring proof of a residence
iu the district longer than the constitutional
period of ten days. Tliat law was, there
fore, held to bo unconstitutional by at major
ity, Justice Reed and I dissenting, The
decision, therefore, has no bearing on the
general question.
That a registry law to identify and dis
tinguish true electors is constitutional we
cannot doubt, and that uniform regulations
are not enjoined by the constitution is be
yond all dsipute.
But is there a necessity for local legisla
tion adapted to the city of Philadelphia,
not suitable to otherpartsof the State? If
not,.why is a city charter granted, with all
its large powers of local government, its
special provisions for police and for conduct?
Where population greatly abounds vice and
virtue have their greatest extremes. A
simple rural population needs no night
police and no lock up. Ilogues and struaip
ets do not nightly traverse the deserted
highways of the farmer. Low inns, restau
rants, sailors' boardinghouses, and houses
of ill-fame do not abound in rural precincts,
ready to pour out on election day their pes
tilent hordes of imported bullies and vaga
bonds, and to cast them multiplied upon the
polls to vote. In large cities such things
exist, and its proper population, therefore,
heeds great protection, and local legislation
must come to their relief. The freedom
and equality of the ballot-box must be pro
tected from the local causes which mar and
destroy a free and equal election. What
crime have the freemen of Philadelphia
committed that their voice at the ballot-box
may be stifled by the fraud or force which
springs out ot their local circumstances, and
yet the legislature be powerless to relieve
them? In the language of another, that
would be "to place the vicious vagrant, the
wandering mobs, the Tartar hordes of our
large cities, on a level with the virtuous and
good man on a level with the industrious,
the poor, and the' rich." Is that a wise and
just interpretation of the constitution,
which opens the polls of a large city to such
imported hirelings and vagabonds without
a home, by adhering to an uniformity of
regulation unsuited to the city on the one
hand or to the country on the other? Ls
the constitution of Pennsylvania so deform
ed and sterile that her iaws cannot protect
the ballot box of a city from falsehood and
fraud because they admit but one unbroken
system for the State? Such an interpreta
tion of the constitution is wanting iu merit,
and can only operate cs an incentive to
fraud. How, then, can the freedom and
equality of elections be secured in a great
city, if from the force of local circumstances
the place of the real electors are Usurped, if
the ballot-box can be stuffed with impunity,
or if suffrage can be exercised only at the
risk of violence oi life !
Thus the ground on which the case was
placed at nisi priusis s.ept away ; the pos
tulate of the learned Judge being that uni
formity of regulation throughout the State
is a demand of the constitution as the
equivalent of equality of election. But when
it is shown that the constitution nowhere
demands uniform regulations, and to the
contrary, that the very equality of elections
demands a difference in regulation to Over
come the obstacles to equality and fairness
in the city, his fundamental position is over
turned, and with it the entire argtinieiit
built upon it. Then of wha f service is it to
display the difference in this latv between
the regulations made for the city and thise
for the State? Let thtm be ten, or ten
times ten, it is not their difference which
proves their unconstitutionality difference
in regulation is not wat of equality in the
election. He who would prove them to be
unlawful must show wherein they subvert
the rights of the electors themselves. If
the prevalent e of fraud, corruption, or force
in the city makes the law more rigid and
exacting in order to determine the rights of
the lawful electors, it may be a hardship,
but it is not caused by the law, but by the
crimes which make the law necessary for
their protection.
When the Legislature possesses an un
doubted anthority to regulate, such as in
this case, its discression is not tho subject of
review. This is expressed by Black, J., in
Sbarpless vs. the City of Philadelphia, 9
Harris, in these words: "There is another
rule which must govern in cases like this,
viz : that we can declare an act of Assembly
void only when it violates the constitution
dearly, palpably, plainly, and in such man
ner as to leave no doubt or hesitation in our
ii inds. This principle is asserted by judges
of every grade, both in the Federal and in
the State courts, and by some of them it is
expressed with much solemnity of language.'
He refers then to 6 Cranch, 87; 4 Dallas,
14 ; 13 S. & It., 178 ; 12 S. & PL, 339 ; 4
Binuey, 123. See also the opinion of Shars
wood, J., in Green vs. The Commonwealth,
decided at Harrisburg in 1868.
We come now to the question. What pro
visions of this law for the regulation of the
city elections, if any, are subversive of the
rights of city elections? The number of
theie objected to is few, after having dis
posed of the difference between city and
State regulations. Much stress has becYi
laid on the rigbt of the people to elect the
officers of the elections, and much said up
on popular rights, which might well be ad
dressed to the Legislature in making or
reforming the law. But, unfortunately for
the argument, the people have by their con
stitution disposed ot all such appeals when
'addressed to us. Which clause of the con
stitution forbids the officers of election, the
canvassers, or even the assessors to be ap
pointed by a board constituted by law,
whether it be a Board of Aldermen or a
Board of Commissioners? Let the consti
tution itself answer. Article 6, Section 8:
"All officers whose election or appointment
is not provided for in this constitution, shall
be elected or appointed as shall be directed
bylaw." Here then is a law made under
the direct sanction of the people themselves,
fexpressly given in the constitution. But it
is said that the law is unconstitutional be
cause the board of appointment in this case
(the aldermen) have a mijority iu it of per
sons belonging to a particular political par
ty.and the argument omitted to say a major
ity which is the result of popular elections.
This ground of unconstitutionality of a law
because a board created by it is composed
of individuals of different political opinipes,
with a majority in a' certain way, the result
of popular election, seems to belong to an
age fruitful in discovery. How is it possi
ble tint any hoard composed of men can be
organized without a majority in political
opinion in one way or another? To the
party in the minority such a board must
always be unconstitutional, it such argu
ments were to prevail.
But clearly it is not unconstitutional and
not unfair to designate a board of gentle
men chosen by the people to administer the
laws among them. If these men be unfit a
gectsit is not the fault of the Legislature, but
of people who will elect such men to admin
ister justice to themselves. The law binds
the Board of Aldermen to appoint the offi
cers of the election, so that the political
party having a majority in the election divi
sion shall have a majority of the board. It
requires the canvassers to be appointed so
that each party will be represented in the
several boards of canvassers, adding a su
pervising power in the courts to correct er
rors. What fair mind can pronounce this
an abuse of legislative power, so gross, so
palpable, and so plain as to become an un
constitutional act? Said Chief Justice Mar
shall : "All power may be abused, aud if
the fear of its abuse is to constitute an argu
ment against its existence, it might be urg
ed against that which is universally acknowl
edged, and which is indispensable to pub
lie safety." Uracil vs. Maryland, 12
Wheaton, 441.
The argument that the aldermen, being
judicial officers, cannot be compelled to act.
is of no weight, and was so regarded by the
whole Court in Page et at. r. Allen et al.,
decided last yeaK The position would over
turn our own acts as judges in the appoint
ment of prison, penitentiary, and building
inspectors, commissioners to take testimony,
and other officers. The practice is sanction
ed by a century ot use. The lower courts
fill all vacancies in county and township of
ficers, such as commissioners, auditors, sur
veyers, district attorneys, constables, super
visors, ?nd over-eers of the poor. The as
sociate justices constitute a part of the mili
tary boards under the bounty and pension
laws, and the boards for the revision of tax
es, arid the judges of the judicial districts
appointed the revenue commissioners. Be
sides, the aldermen have not refused, and it
s not likely they will refuse ; and what au
thority have these plaintiffs to gainsay their
ripht td act, or to put in a refusal 6nheir
behalf? The truth is, the whole weight of
this objection Consists in the fact that the
majority of the board, representing the pop
ular majority, hold opposite opinions to the
plaintiffs, and when a new deal of the popu
lar cards turns up a new majority,I suppose
gebtlemen of the opposite party will use the
same argument.
The next objection urged, with equal.per
haps greater zeal, is that there is no provis
ion for assessing persons in the city after the
20ih of September. The purpose of this
regulation is obvious ; it 'a to cut off the
unqualified persons who are imported into
the district to displace the votes of the true
electors, by taking a period for the latest
asses merit sufficiently distant from the day
of election to render it incouvenient and
difficult for these hirelings to obtain a false
qualification. But what clause of the con
stitution requires the assessment of tales to
be extended to any period ? It is a new
discovery that the system of taxation must
be subordinate to that of election. Neither
the constituaion of 1790 nor that of 1S3S
prescribed any time for the exercise ot the
powers of taxation, though both use the
payment of tax within two vear3 as the
means of discovering the true elector, and
as an evidence of his residence and member
ship in the community. It is a great error
in constitutional law to mistake a restriction
for an injunction. When the constitution
provides that the elector shall have paid
xcithin two years a State or county tax,
which shall have been assessed at least ten
days before the election, its- purpose was to
restrain the assessment so that voters might
not be fraudulently made at the very polls;
but it did not require the tax power to be
altered so that the assessments should be
compulsory down to the tenth day before
tBe election. There is no express injunc
tion, and it is not even a fair implication.
The rights o f the true electors were well
protected when they were allowed two years
pending for the payment of a tax to secure
their qualification, a petiod including cer
tainly two, and it might be three, annual as
sessments. To this the law adds an extra
assessment at any time before the 20th ot
September. The time of the assessment of
taxes is part of a different, system that of
taxation ; and the constitution has nowhere
said it is to be subordinated to the system
of election. This time belongs to the sound
discretion of the Legislature, and should be
regulated with a regard to what they be-1
lieve the best interest of the citizens. If
the Assembly believe that the best means
to prevent frauds in the city elections is to
increase the period of the last assesment, it
may be done the only constitutional pro
vision being the restriction that the time
shall not be less than ten days before the e
lection. The alleged double taxation scarcely de
serves notice. The system of annual taxa
tion has marked the whole history of the
government. He whose name is on -the
annual list, and on whom a tax is assesed,
is clearly not to be listed a second time for
taxation, lie is to be listed for the elec
tion. The first list of electors to be made be
fore the 1st of June, and being made by the
same officers, is evidently intended to be
made in connection with the original assess
ment. If an elector has been already taxed,
his tax will be transfered to the list of elec
tors ; if not, the tax will then be assessed
in order to perfect his qualifications as a
voter. When the law is so easily harmo
nized it is a forced construction which exacts
a second tax from one whose name is on
the original list.
The extra assessments on the subsequent
lists are evidently required to perfect the
elector's qualifications.
It is argued that the provision of this
act which requires the assess ors to omit
from their lists all boarders at hotels, taverns,
sailors' boarding houses and restrurants.and
all persons not aualifiej electors having a
fixed residence in the divsion, is unconstitu
tional. It is said that a large class of elect
ors Is thus excluded from the list. This is
a palpable error. The law forbids the as
sessors to take down the names of such per
sons, to prevent the frauds' known to result
from taking down lists of such persons given
in as boardes when no such persons arc resi
ding at the hotel or boarding-house. But
it nowhere forbids these omitted persons
from being placed on the registry at the
proper time, and on proper evidence. On
the contrary, a mode is provided to enable
every lawful elector to be registered by ap
plication to the assessors or to the canvas
sers. Clearly, the feature complained of is
a useful provision to protect the right of
the true electors of Philadelphia, and to
reach the Unqualified persons found at such
convenient places just on the fcve of an elec
tion, when their Votes are needed by un
scrupulous men. Its purpose is to exclude
this fraudulent element, by compelling all
persons not known householders and fiixed
inhabitants to come personally before the
proper board, and make proof of iheir right.
True, the omission requires ot single men,
clerks, journeymen and transient boarders a
greater vigilance to secure their suffrage,
but the hardship is not imposed by the law,
but by the necessity vthich required it, in
order to protect them and all other honest
electors from being supplanted by fraudu
lent votes. W hat clause of the constitution
forbids this policy to be cxeercised according
to the exigencies of the eircumetane.es?
When the population of a locality is con
stantly changing, and men are often un
known to their next door neighbors ; where
a large number is floating upon the rivers
and the sea, going and returning, and inca
pable of identification ; where low inns,
restaurants, and boarding houses constantly
afford the means of fraudulent additions to
the lists of voters, what rule of sound reason
or of constitutional law forbids the Legisla
ture, from providing a means to distinguish
the honest people of Philadelphia or else
where from the rogues and vagabonds who
would usurp their places aud rob them of
their rights. I cannot understand the
the reasoning which would deny to the Leg
islature this essential power to define the
evidence which is necessary to destinguish
the false from the true. The logic which
disputes the power to prohibit challenges
in elections on the ground that it effects
their freedom or equality, must also deny
the power to repress the social disorders of
a city, because the same bill of rights de
clare that ail men are free and equal and in
dependent, andjiave the right of pursuing
their happiness. Thi power to legislate on
the subject of elections, to provide the boards
of officers to determine their duties, carries
with it the power to prescribe the evidence
of the identity and the qualifications of vo
ters. The error is in assuming that the
true electors are excluded because they
may omit to avail themselves of the means
ofpioving their identity and their qualifi
cations. It might as well be argued that
the old law was unconstitutional because it
required a naturalized citizen to produce
his certificate of the fact, and expressly for
bade his vote if he did not. What injustice
is done to real electors by making up the
lists so that all persons without fixed resi
dences shall be required to appear in per
son, and thus to furnish a true record of
the qualified electors within the district?
In connection with this subject another
feature is mentioned as a hardship, require
ing the proof of residence by two witnesses,
who must be householders and electors
But hardship is not the test of the constitu
tionality of a law. This case is no harder
than the law which requires a will to be
proved by two witnesses before a man can
exercise his more precious right of disposing
of his property among his children when he
comes to die. Both laws have the same
purpose protection. One would protect
electors against fraudulent voters ; the oth
er would protect the dying man against a
fraudulent wilL
Another complaint is made of unconsti
tutionality, on the ground that the canvesers
are required to strike off the lists the names
of all unqualified persons, if, upon due in-
qiry and investigation, they shall find them
to be unqualified; but, in the absence of
the person, they can only do t,his ojf the tes
timony of at least two reputable citizens,
who are private houeholders.
The argument is that the 1 w is tm con
st hutional because the canvassers might a
buse their powers- They are not permitted
to strike off the name of any unvualiGcd vo
ter, and if they do he has his remedy at law
to compe'.l them to-return his name. The'
Canvassers are a legal fribunyl established
to decide on evidence of qualification, are
sworn officers, and are required to proceed
in a due and proper mode. But a law can
be pronounced unconstitutional only when
the law itself subverts the true l;ctor's
rights, and not because the tribunal acting
under it may mate mistakes or abuse func
tions. All tribunals of every kind could be
set aside upon such an argument. The
language of Chief Justice Marshall may be
aain rcfered to on this point.
Another ground much urged is that the
proper time for tho proof of the qualifica
tions of electors is the day of election, for
then only, it is said, the period ot residence
is complete, and from the nature of the
facts ttiis cannot be shown before. Grant
it. But this position is taken in mistake of
the very law before us. By this law it is on
that day, the election day, the election board
sits to reccive.the vote and the proof; then
the elector appears befoie them and proves
his franchise; then the evidence is produced
and the decision made upon it. But what
clause in the Constitution forbids the means
to be provided beforehand which furnishes
evidence of the fact? What clause forbids
the making up of a record ten days before
that shows that the person offering his vote
to the board was an aclual resident in the
precinct ten days before, and was then set
down as entitled to claim his privilege on
the day of election? Why is such a record
not good evidence that his residence actual y
begjn in the district or pre existed there
ten days before the election? It certainly
does not diminish the true elector's right,
but, on the contrary, tends to secure it. It
is better than the testimony of some ir-res-ponsible
?nd base perjiircr.btoaglit to prove
a false residence' at some low boarding house.
The record has the merit of truthfulness,
and it relieves the true and honest elector of
those unfounded and malicious objections
to his Vote made by partisans of either side.
Here is the legal proof that his residence in
the district began in the due constitutional
time. What better proof can there well bo
of a residence complete on the day of elec
tion than the personal appearance of the
elector on that dy, claiming his vote, with
his balioi. iu one hand and the register in
the other ? I is good evidence, for the le
gal presumption of rcidence arising from
such proof is, violent.
But it is unnecessary to discuss this sub
ject at greater length. The want of time
to condense the argument has made this
opinion already too long. Kiuugh has been
said to show that free and equal elections are
the true end to be secured, and that the sys
tem of laws regulating the elections is only
the means of securing the end ; that this
system ot regulation is the subject of legis
lation over which the Legislature exercises
a sound discretion ; that no clause in the
constitution requires uniformity or regula
tion, or prohibits legislation according to
the obstacles which different localities pre
sent to prevent a free and equal election ;
and that it is a mistake to substitute' uni
formity of regulation for the free and equal
election which it is the object of the regula
tion to secure. We have been also shown
that none ot the features of this law sub
verts the rights of the true electors of this
city, mid that is the only test of the consti
tutionaliry of driy provision contained in the
It is true there is a kind of liberty this
Registry Law will destroy. It is that li
centiousness, that adulterous freedom which
surrenders the polls to hirelings and vaga
bonds, outcasts from home and honest in
dustry ; men without citizenship or stake in
the government ; men who will commit pur
jury, violence, and murder itself. To pre.
vent this is the purpose of tho law, and it
should have the aid of fair men of all parties
to give it a fair trial, and secure its true end.
It may have defects doubtless it has; and
what system devised by the wit ot man has
not? But its delects, if any, should be
remedied as they are disclosed by experi
ence. The law is not unconstitutional. It
is a part of the political system of the State,
on which its offices and its very continuance
depend; and we, as a Court, have no right
to put hands upon the whole system on the
grounds of mere hardship, and for defects
of regulation which are not clear or palpable
violations of the letter or very spirit of the
The decree of the Court of JS7i I'rius is
revers-ed.and the special injunction di.- solved,
and the case remanded for further pro
Thompson, C. J., and Sharswood, J.,
- Several liu e irIs at Lowe'l saved up
their Fourth of July spending money and
got up a fair for a sick soldier, which real
ized ti'2, for the sick and destitute man.
The prudent youni? men who can afford to
watch and wait should not commit matri
mony until these girls are grown women.
They will every one make a good wife,
oung ladies should be careful and not
get chaps on their lips. They have been
known to lead to an affection of the heart.
There are ten Indians to one Russian in
W. WALTERS. Attormt At Law.
. Clearfield. Pa. Ofce in the Court House.
ALTER BARRETT, Attorney at La-w. Clear
field.'. 31ayl3, IS63.
ED. Av GRAHAM, Dealer in Drj-loods, Groce
ries, Hardware. Queensware. Wooden ware,
Provisions, etc., Marie et Street. Clearfield. Pa.
DATID ii. NIVLiX(i . Dealer in Dry-Goods.
Ladies' Fancy Hoods, Hats and Caps. Boots,
Shoes. eto . Second Street. Clearfield. Pa. sep25
TERRELL BIGLER. Dealers in Hardware
3-L and manufacturers of Tin and f heet-iroa
rare. Second Street. C!arfield, Pa. June '6fi.
HF.XAUGLE. Watch and Clock Maker, and
. dealer in Watches, Jewelry, Ac. Room in
lira ham's row. Market street. Nov. 10.
HBUCIIER gWOOPE. Attorney at Law.Clear
. field. Pa. oprci inOraham's Row, fourdoo I
west of Graham A Koynton's store. Nov. 13.
ft W SMITH. Attormkt at Law. Clearfield,
11. P - "11 attend promptly to busine s en
trusted to his care. June 30. I 59,
ni.LTAM A. WALLACE. Attorney at Law.
V Clearfield, Pa.. Le;al business of all kinds
promptly and accurately attenueti to.
Clearfield, Pa.. Jane 'Jib. IS69.
J I! M'EX ALLY, Attorneyat Law. Clearfield,
. Pa. Prseticea in Clearfield and adjoin'ng
luunties. Ofiiee in new brick buildinjt of J.Boyn
t hi. 2d street, one door south of Lamch's Hotel.
J TEST. Attorney at Law. Clearfield', tm., will
. attend promptly to all L2a' business entrust
ed to his care in Clearfield and adjoining eojin
lies. UrBce on Market street. July 17, 1867.
riiUOMAS H. FORCET, Dealer, Cn Square and
1 Sawed Lumber. Dry-Ooods.Queenswafe, Gro
ceries. Flour, tiraio, F6ed, Macon, Ao., Ac., Gra
bamton, Clearfield county, Pa Oct. 10.
J P. KRATZER. Dealer in Dry -Goods. Clothing,
. Hardware Queensware, Groceries. Provi
sions, etc. Market !-tree nearly opposite the
Court House. Clearfield. Pa. June. 16B5.
nRTSWICK A IRWIS. Dealers in Drugs,
Medicines. Paints. Oils. Stationary. Perfume
rj . Fancy Goods, Notions, etc., etc., Market street,
Clearfield. P Dec, g, 1S8S.
KRATZER i. SON, dealers in Dry Goods,
. Clothing. Hardware. Queensware. Groee,
ries. Provisions, Ae., Second Street Cleat field,
pa. Dec. 27,1865.
JOHN GTELICH. Manufacturer of, !1 kinds of
Cabinet-ware, Market street. Clearfield, Pa
lie also makes to order Coffins, on short notice, and
attends funerals with a hearse. AprlO.'S.
milOMAS J. M'CCLLOCGH. Attorney at Lawi
X Clearfield. Pa. Office, east of the ' Clearfield
o Lank. Deeds and other legal instruments pre
pared with promptness and accuracy. July 3.
1 I CHARD MOPSOP, Dealer in Foreign and Do
V mestie Dry Goods, Groceries. Flour, BeoN
Liquors. Ae. Room, on Market street, a few doora
westol JorWOyffr.Clearfield. Pa. Apr27.
all kinds of Stone-ware. Clearfield, P- Or
ders solicited wholesale or retail He alsokeen
on hand and for sale an assortment of earthen
ware, of his own manufacture. Jan. 1. ISftS .
XT M. HOOYER.Wholesale and Retail Dealer ia
litrge assortment of pipes, cigar ca?es. c, con
stantly on hand. Twd door East of the Post
Office, Clearfield, Pa; May 19. C9.
"XTTESTERN HOTEL, Clearfield, Pa Thi
Y well known hotel, hear the I Odrt House, is
worthy the patronage of th public The table!
will be supplied with the best in the market, The"
best of liquors kept. JOHX DOUGHERTl
JOHN H.Fl'LFORD, Attorney at Law. Clear
field. Pa;. Office on Market Street, OTef
Hart-wick A Irwin's Drugstore. Prompt attention
given to the securingofBoonty claims, Ac. .and to
all legal holiness. March 27, 1667.
VtT ALBERT, A rUI'S-Dealcrs in Dry GhodSj
W Groceries, Hardware. Queensware. Flour Ba-
con, etc.. Woodland. Clearfield county. Pa. Also
extensive dealers in all kinds of sawed lumber
shingles, and square timber. Orders Solicited!
Woodland, Pa.,Ang. 19ih,18fi3
Dtt J. P. BtRCHFIELD Late Furgeon of thw
83d Reg t Penn'a Vols., having returned
from the army, offers bis professional services to
the citixens of Clearfield and vicinity. Profes
sional calls promptly attended to Office on
Soutb-Eas corner of 3d and Market Streets.
Oct. 4. 1S8S 6inp.
qURVKYOR. The undersigned offers
his services to the' ptiblic. as a Surveyor.
He inay be found at his residence in Lawienea
township, when not engaged Or addressed by
letter at Clearfield, Penn'a.
March flth. 1867.-tf. J MES MITCHELL.
Physician and Surgeon,
Having located at Osceola. Pa., offers his profes
sionnl services to the people of that place and sur
rounding country. All calls promptly attended
to. Office and residence on Cnrtin Street, former
ly occupied by Dr. Kline May 1969.
rpflOMAS V. .MOORE, Land Surveyor
and Conveyancer. Having recently lo
cated in the Borough of Lumber City, and resuia'
sumcd the pmctice of Land Surveying, respect
fully tenders his professional services to the owe.
era and speculators in lands in Clearfield and al
joing counties L'eeJs of Conveyance neatly ex
ecuted. Office and residence one door East of
Kirk Sr Spencers store
Lumber City. April 14, 1S69 ly.
qOLDIERS BOUNTIES. A recent bill
has passed both Hoitesof Congress.and
signed by the President, giving soldiers who en-v
listed prior to 22d July. I art I. served one year or
more and -wje honorably discharged, a bounty
of I n.
tBo6ntIes and Pensions collected by me for
thoteentitled to them.
At!g. I6th, lf5fl. . Clearfield, Pa.
t ; 1 1 ...i. .kn r
or fail to cause them to rejoice Over a well far
ni?nau uvis. wiin cicau niuuii mu new oeas,
where all inay feel at home and the weary be at
rest. New stabling attached.
-Philipsbnrg. Sep. 2,'fl3. JAS. H. PALER.
Huntingdon. Penn'a.
This old establishment having beea leased by
J. Morrison, formerly Proprietor cf the "Morrison
House.' has beea thoroughly renovated and re
furnished, and supplied with all the modern im
provements and con venieneies necessary to a first
class Hotel. The dining room has been removed
to the first Boor, and Is now spacious and airy.
The chambers are all well ventilated, and th
Proprietor will endeavor to make hi gaestsper
feetly at home. 1 MOKKISON.
Huctingdon.Jnne IT.lSftS. Proprietor.
V R. A.M. HtLLS desires to inform bis patient
and the public generally, tba be baa associated
wilhbim in the practice Of Dentistry.S. P.6H A W.
D. B S . who is a graduate of the Philadelphia
Dental College, and therein? has the highest
attestations of his Professional (kill.
All work done in the office I will hoM myself
personally responsible for being done in th mmt
satisfactory manner and bighorn order of th pro
An established practice of twenty-two yean in
this place enables mi tospeak to my patrons with
Engagements from a distance should be mad
by letter k few days before tb patient designs
coming. Clearfield. June 3, 1MS-Iy.
u ::
t '
5 . :