Raftsman's journal. (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, July 28, 1869, Image 1
UL ml - ft 11 - r- i lit BY S. J. ROW. CLEARFIELD, PA., WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, i860. VOL. 15 NO, 46. T 3 detect gortnt. A GESTLE'S'ORD ISKETEB LOST. 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. THE REGISTRY LAW OF PENNSYL VANIA CONSTITUTIONAL. jrrBKME cornT is easc prfsext. cnitr justice THOMPSON, ASD JUSTICES RKEO, AGSfcW, SnARSWOOD. AD WILLIAMS. 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- r 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 law. 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 Constitution. 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 proceedings. Thompson, C. J., and Sharswood, J., dissent. - 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 Alaska. A 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. T FREDERICK LEITZINGER, Manufacturer of 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 l . TOBACCO. CKiARS A.D SSVFF. A 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. JEFFERSON L I T Z, M. D., 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. WALTER BARRETT, Att'y at Law. At!g. I6th, lf5fl. . Clearfield, Pa. QLEARFlELl) HOUSE, FRONT STREET, PHILIP3BL'R. 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. E X C It A J? O E MOTEL, 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. jjENTAL PARTNERSHIP-. 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 femion An established practice of twenty-two yean in this place enables mi tospeak to my patrons with confidence. Engagements from a distance should be mad by letter k few days before tb patient designs coming. Clearfield. June 3, 1MS-Iy. n i- u :: s t ' 5 . : TTT