The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-10-08
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1868.
The Action of AN Good Cltizens.

ing interest on the proceedings progressing in
the Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania. Public
Interest, such as is rarely felt in any lega'
movement, has been excited by the shifting
attitudes of the officers engaged in the investi-
CATION and the officers being investigated. AT
last clear case is presented, and in the argu-
ments of the counsel we find resume of the
condition of things in the Prothonotary's Office
as revealed by the testimony. From the evil
dence submitted we feel authorized in saying
that, in all probability, in addition to the 6000
papers with bona fde seals attached, there are
also as many more forged, stolen, or felonious,
circulated by scoundrels either in or having
access to the office. The evidence shows thai
we have no protection against unlimited fraud
and we would well tremble for the purity OF
our ballot-box II there had not intervened
higher power than the Judge at Nisi Prius.
There are in existence two courts composed of
the Supreme Judges, or, more correctly speak
ing, one court and a segment-the Supreme
Court in Banc and Nisi Prius. At present
the Chief Justice is holding the latter, and of
it we shall first speak. number of our most
substantial citizens petitioned the Chief JUS
tice to grant a rule on the following parties
for the following causes, to show cause why
their certificates of naturalization should not
be recalled
LIST. On 27 men, because they did not specify
their residences in their application, as pro-
Vided for by law.
I'd. On q men, because they were vouched
for by the same man, viz James A. Watson,
and vouched for fraudulently.
Sd. On 2 men, because they vouched for
ach other.
The two first of these rules he refused,
alleging that the first was not required by
law, which is, we deem, an error, as can be
seen by inspecting the acts Of 1916 and 1928.
OF this, however, the Judge was to decide
The second was refused on most singular
ground-that it was not unlikely that James
A. Watson actually knew all the men he
vouched for, and did know them to have re-
sided for five years in the United States. Nay,
the Chief Justice went further. He said
that one voucher might honestly vouch for
100 men. Certainly it is not impossible 1t
is not impossible that cargo of 1000 Irish
men might be dumped down on one spot,
and being at once governed by an American,
live all together for five years. In that case
the American could honestly vouch for the
entire thousand. This is not impossible but
Mr.. Chief Justice, is it not improbableH Is it
likely that when Watson vouched for these
men he committed perjury We think it is.
But, unfortunately for the Chief Justice, the
matter is not lett in doubt. Watson himself
DE- IL L
swore:-
81 vouched for seven or eight from Mont
gomery county; they gave one dollar apiece for
vouching for them; was in TrimbalPs HOTEL
at the railroad depot. Germantown, when
party of men from Montgomery county came
in; did not know any of them; O. Mason
Hooker asked me to vouch for them / said
vouching for them."
The ink was not dry on the Chief Justices
refusal when the man himself confesses. The
light in which this places the Court is not an
enviable one. The rule on the two men,
there being no possible excuse for refusal,
was granted, but personal seroice required-a
thing which will be almost impossible. So
the matter stands, checked and tied down a.
Nisi Prius.
Meanwhile the Supreme Court itself is
moving. The letter of Justices Read, Agnew
and Williams, declaring that these proceedings
have all been illegal, is startling one, but one
which is eminently truthful and just. The
present was no time for hesitation, and we are
glad that, as the Chief Justice would not read
the letter in court the higher tribunal OF
public opinion was appealed to. Now what is
the aspect in which that letter places the ap-
preaching electionY
1t has altered the attitude of the parties
and will tend to new complications. Let us
rise above all confines of party; let us sink the
partisan and look at this grave question as
itizens who dearly prize their citizenship, a,
voters who dearly prize the right of suffrage.
We do not know, nor do we care, what were
the politics of these newly coined citizens.
Some were doubtless Democrats; some were
doubtless Republicans. If they were equally
divided, or If either party possessed all exclu-
sively, we would speak the same. The quasi
judicial character of the letter of Judge Read
compels notice to be taken of it. Yet, with
out some Interpretation, it is not yet law. We
think, therefore, the District Attorney,
the law officer of the county, should
instruct the return judges, without distinction
party, what they should do. And in order
to avoid all trouble, his instructions should
be somewhat in this wise:-''You cannot refuse
the votes Of naturalized citizens utterly and
entirely without causing probable trouble.
You cannot accept them unconditionally with
out sacrificing the purity of the ballot. Provide