The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-07-03
EGAL INTELLIGENCE.
THE REGISTRY LAW.
Decision of the Supreme
Court.

supRHME CoURT-Chief Justice Thompson,
and Justices Strong, Read, Agnew and Shars-
Pursuant to adjournment in the early part of
last month, the Court sat this morning in order
to decide the many cases argued before them
during the last days of their sitting, and to
clear up the business generally before entering
into the regular summer vacation. Upon the
opening of the Court the CHIEF Justice re refused
to hear any application, but proceeded at once
to deliver the opinion of the Court In
Ths Registry Law Case,
Page ct al, vs. Allen ct al., and Robb ct al. VS.
Barlow ct al. In equity at Nlsi Prius. The first
Of these bills was filed by the platntihs, resi- resi-
dents, Taxpayers and qualified voters OF this
city, against the defendants, the Aldermen of
the city, to restrain them from exercising GER
capacity, which, it is alleged, they claim to be
conferred upon tnem by nassed Sne pEGyi1ions
1868 entitled "a further supplement- to the
act relating and me from o9SSGnS appoinns % or @ a
tempting to appoint canvassers as directed in
and by the said act, or from interIerlng or IN.
TO obstruot the qualified voters ofthts Common
wealth by any act or means whatsoever from the ne
them by the constitution of the Common
wealth" The second bill is to the same effect
by parties possessing like qualifications, and
including as defendants the members OF The
Select and Common Councils of the city, the
of the city, as well as the Aldermen.
These bills question the constitutionality OF
known as the Registry act," aud charge among
other matters that large sum of money will
act into operation, which as taxpayers they are
interested to prevent, and which would be
unconstitutional and void. The right of the
plaintiffs to interfere on these grounds
could have been, any time since the decision
In Sharpless VS.. the Mayor, etc, Har. li7, and
both it was conceded that the interest of a tax
payer, where money was to be raised by taxa
tion. or expended from the treasury, was suth-
Client to entitle him to proceed in equity to test
the validity OF the law which proposed the as
me- p or U inns eeGE T rs MOL Ue
have power to enjOin the respondents has not
6een en- disputed LISP The case OF Kerr ys zo TETego
thority We're wanting, would be sufficient for
The power of this Court and its 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 of due execution. This power is not
disputed. What shall be the test of want of
constitutional sanctionts question OF more or
less difficulty in all cases involving It, tbs
usual on the part Of those who insist on the
that it must be regarded as constitutional un-
less expressly prohibited by some provision in
ing the CONSTITUTION of the State, whatever is
not expressly denied to the legislative power
rule may remark is the rule Of CONSTRUCTION
of the Federal Constitution. assent to this,
ho6 be- shs aS e OF They eSua
effective. and, not less to be regarded when
they arise by necessary implication, and
this is the case when the legislative
provision is repugnant to some provi-
S.. 42S; e S. & r., 8 Casey, Iii; Wr 4O3. To
illustrate this idea. The executive power of
the State under the Constitution Is lodged
in q Governor, and the legislative in Senate
and House of Representatives. 1t would be
Constitution If an act of Assembly should pro-
vide for the election of Two executives. or two
Senates, and Houses of Representatives at the
same election; yet 1t would be unconstitutional
only by implication, there being no express
prohibition on the subject so IN regard 10
require o residence in the State for ten years
and a freehold estate, in order 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 leglslatlol
ttion 'nS pae&99S rut9s of ONE tbiGg in
the Constitution is necessarily the exclusion
cislly true of constitutional provisions deelara-
tory in their nature. The remark OF Lord
Bacon that, as exceptions strengthen the force
of @ general law, SO enumeration weakens as to
things not enumerated, expresses principle of
common sense applicable to the Constitution,
which Is to be understood in It's plain, untech
meal sense. Commonwealth VS.. Clark. Z. G..
These instances Illustrate the principle of
the authorities, which hold that acts repugnanJ
10 the constitution are void By Implication,
and at the same time they also Illustrate the
inquiry in the case IN hand, whether JhlS act Is
constitutional
clares, "in elections by the citizens, every white
freeman Of the age of twenty-one years having
ELECTION district where he offers to vote ten days
Immediately preceding such election, ana
within two years paid q State or county tax,
which shall have been assessed at least ten
days before the election, shall enjoy the rights
of an elector; but citizen or the United
States who had previously been quallhed
voter of this Slate and removed there
from and returned, and who shall have
resided in the election district and paid taxes as
aforesaid shall be entitled to vote after residing
in the Stale six months: PrOUtded, that white
freemen, 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,
fixed, and enumerated in that instrument. In
those who possess them Is vested high and, TO
freemep, sacred right, of which they cannot be
divested by any but the power which esta-
blished them, Viz.--the people, in their direct
legislative capacity. This will not be disputed.
For the orderly exercise of the right resulting
Legislature must prescribe necessary regula-
tions as to the places, mode, and manner, and
whatever else may be required, to insure It's
null and free exercise. But this duty and right
inherently imply that such regulations are TO be
subordinate to the enjoyment of the right, the
exercise of which is regulated The right must
not be impaired by the regulatlon II must De regua,
non purely and not destruction II this were not an
immutebe principle elements essential to the right
nseiI might be invaded, FILTERED away or entirely
ana then would the natural order OF things be sub
Nerled by making the principal subordinate to the
accessory TO state Is To prove THIS position. AS
c3rollary Of this constitutional qualification OF an
eieetor can In the least be abridged, ADDED to, or
= fegulAtion. Any such action would necessarily be
% %apsoiuteiy yod and Of no effect We hold therefore
lstion can be valid which wOuId have the effect 20
% az Ihe alstrct or state residence prior the
on 9ieI 70 exercise the right OF an eleCtOr
which would Impose other additional taxation or