The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1856-02-14
From the Harrisburg Patriot.
THE CONTESTED SEAT.

1t is generally understood iha, in tho case
Of the contest for seat in the Housc--be-
tween Mr.. McGhee, of Clinton, AMI Mr..
Beck, Of Lycoming, that The Committee will
report in favor of the latter gentleman.
We were not present during the invesliga-
ion Of the case--ail we heard were the ar
guments before the Committee. The sitting
member Was represented by Mr.. McComb,
member from Lawrence-,he contestant bs
MIR. Buckalew, Senator from Columbia
Each had the benefit of able council. Both
gentlemen served through friendship for the
respective parties.
From the argument of the case we learn.
ed that The contest was in consequence of
Illegally in the place of holding the election
in certain township in Potter County. The
contestant claimed that the vote of that box
should not be counted, and that he was,
therefore, entitled tothe seat. 1t was in ev
idsnce that the election was held half a mile
distant, from, and out of sight OF the place
fixed by an act of assembly for holding the
same, and that it was different from ,ha,
named by the sheriff in his proclamation.
Mr.. McComb contended that there was no
allegation of fraud-lhat The place where the
election was held was OF The same name oil
that fixed by an act Of assembly-thal Mr.
M'G. received majority of the votes cast,
ane was, therefore, tho rishtful claimant to
the seat. Mr.. Buckalew rested the case up
on point of law upon which, he con,ended
the question would have 10 lie determined
that was, whether the board of election off.
GERS had the right TO hold The election in q
place remote from that fixed by an act Of
assembly. He said that if they had power
TO remove, half mile, they could, with the
same prorriety, hold the election a, The edge
OF The township, or even out of the town.
ship. This struck US as a strong point, and
as both good law and good sense. II was,
doubtless, the poiol on which the committee
decided The case. The report will soon be
made BY the Hon. Henry D. Foster, the
chairman Of the committee, whose high re.
putaion as lawyer is we'll known through.
out The State.
The argument for The contestant urged thai
the election was poid and not merely lrsgu
lar, because the requirements of law as to
The time and place of an election are mol di.
reclory only but peremptory. An election
held al another place than ha, fixed by law
is void aud Intellectual as one held al another
time. When an act fixes an election at a
house or other building i, need not be- held
in il, or precisely along side of it; il will be
held at The place if held near the house or 9th.
er building, in full view, few steps or rod:
distant. Ia such case the law is substantially
complied with, for ii is 10 receive reason.
able construction. But an election held hail
mile distant and out of view, is no more
held al the place. than an election held on
the third Tuesday Of October would be al
the time fixed BY law, and is equally null and
void Besides public policy requires that no
such power in an election board as that oil
removing elections from place to place should
be tolerated. If it obtain, there will be nc
end to frauds, contests and expense.