The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-07-02

sUPRsM CoURT.-Chiet Justice Thomson,
and j usU tgS Strong, Read AgneW and SnArs
wood.
Pursu' Iat to adjournment In the early part of
last mo Hsh the Court sat this morning In order
To deci 80 the many cases argued before the~N
during the last days of their siIting, aud 10
into he regular summer vaclJion. Uoou the
open rag of the Court the Chief Justice refased
TO tgIver the opinion of the Court In
The Registry Law Case.
j hSge ct al VS.. Allen ct AZ, and Ro6O ct al vs.
Of ese e. bills was ed by ne % pan res
d snts, tax. payers, and qualified voters of this
y against the fSo 6ne oep OF
ixin powers and authority in their aggregate
capacity, which it is alleged they claim to be
ls6s, emitted "a further supplement- to the
CommonWeaith Co. onS p |" and from appointing or at
tempting TO appoint canvassers as directed in
and by the said act, or from interfering or in
termeddling with. or obstructlng or attempting
to obstruct the qualified voters ofthis Common
wealth by any act or means whatsoever from the
enjoyment of the rights OF electors secured to
them by the constitution of the Common
by parties possessing like qualifications, and
including as defendants the members of the
Select and Common Councils of the city, the
City Commissioners, Controller, and Treasurer
of the city, as well as the Aldermen.
These bills question the constitutionaltty of
the act of Assembly, referred to, and familiarity
known as the "Regstry act, and charge among
n
be required from the city treasury to put the
act into operation, which as taxpayers they are
wholly mlsappiied, the act being rs they allege
unconstitutional and void The right OF the
vas was not disputed; neither do think it
could have been, since 6h9 declslo1
Moers M % vs.. pse the City Of Reading, lb. lSS. In
both il was conceded that the interest OF TAX
payer, where money was to be raised by taxa
ton, or ex pended from the treasury, was sufi-
Client to entitle him to proceed in equity to test
the validity OF the law WHICH Prop9sed posed tne as as
VS. the Reading Railroad Company. That we
en9 tne @ US nTs Tseao n0
IL VIZ 292; Ewing VS.. Thompson, 10. 379, If au-
thority were wanting, would be Sufficient for
The power of this Court and It's duty to de-
clare an act of Assembly unconstitutional, If 1t
be plainly so, is no more to be doubted than It's
power TO DECLARE an instrument of writing void
for want oi due execution This power is not
consliLutit nal sanction is q question of more or
less difficulty in all cases Involving 1t. lis
copstitutio iaiity of any given statute to claim
that 1t muF ybe regarded as constitutional un-
less expressly prohibited by some provision in
ing the Constitution of the State, whatever is
hOt by it. The opposite Of this
rule, may remark is the rule of construction
but not that the inhibitions Of the Constitution
must be always expressed; They are equally
effective and not less to be regarded when
TINS is the case when the legislative
RrSgelFopn oH 81 The TsP%sHan' %as SSS WY
g.. 423; IL ). q II, Casey, 4i4; D Nr., 4O3. 10
illustrate this idea. The executive power of
the State under the Constitution is lodged
in Governor, and the legislative In Senate
manic silly repugnant to these provisions of the
Constitution II an act of Assembly should pro-
Senates. and Hcuses of Representatiyes at the
same election, yet it would be unconstitutional
only by implication, there being no express
prohibition on the subject. SO in regard to
qualifications for office. An act which should
require a residence in the state for ten years
or siSee freeh%d Estate in a" ordef to to be % eligible
to the office of representative, would be void
\ for repugnancy, because differing from the
Constitution and would be so only by necessary
implication; necessary TO keep legislation
tuition. The expression of one thing in
the Constitution is necessarily the exclusion
cislly true of constitutional provisions decara-
tory in their nature. The remark OF Lord
Bacon that, as exceptions siren gtn en- the force
of q general law, SO enumeration weakens as TO
things not enumerated, expresses principle OF
common sense applicable TO the Consultation,
which is TO be understood in It's plain, untech-
meal gense. Commonwealth vs. clark. 4 g.
These instances illustrate the principle OF
the authorities, which hold that acts repuguant
To the constitution are void by implication
and at the same time they also illustrate the
inquiry In the case IN hand, whether this act is
In article III, section l, the constitution de-
clares, "in elections by the citizens every white
y freeman oil Jne age OF IWenI Iy-OuS yehts haNlhS
resided in this State one year, ana IN the
eecl lon district where he offers TO vote ten days
4 imme mediaLely preceding such election, ana
within two years paid q State or county tax,
which shall have been assessed at least ten
days before the eection, shall enjoy the rights
of an elector; but a citizen OF the United
States who had previously been qualined
voter of this State and removed tnere-
f.om and returned, and who shall have
rekided IN the election district and paid taxes as
aforesaid shall be entitled to vote after residing
in the Stale six months: PrOutded, that white
1reemen, citizens of the United states, between
the ages OF tWenty-one and twenty-five years,
and having resided in the State one year and
in the election district ten days as aforesaid,
shall be entitled to vote though they shall not
have paid taxes"
These are the constitutional qualifications
necessary to be an electOr. They are defined
dxed, and enumerated in that instrument. In
those who possess them IL vested q high and 10
freemen, sacred right, of which they cannot be
o1vested by any but the power which esta'
bltshed them, Viz--the people, in their direct
legislative capacity. This Will not be disputed.
For the orderly exercise of the right resulting
from these qualifications, IL Is admitted that the
= Legislature must prescribe necessary regula.
tions as TO the places, mode, aud manner and
whatever else may be required to insure its
full and free exercise. ButJhis duty and right
inherently imply that such regulation are To be
subordinate TO the enjoyment OF the right, the
exercise OF which Is regulated. Tue right mu 81
be impaired by the regulation 1t must DE Tegula
ton purely. and not destruction tna were not 81
inmutable principle emenIs essential 10 the righ
Itself might be invaded filtered away, entirely
exc uded under the name OF pretense OF regulation
ADf then would the natural order or things oe s9e.
secesS ory. TO state is TO prove this position As
DSrolaly OF this qualification OF an
eleetoT ca In the least be abridged, ADDED 70, or
. altered by Legislative action the pretense OF
regulation. Any such action Wonld necessarily pt