Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1869-07-28

and left the means of accomplishments 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 power..which actually infringes the rights
of the electors. 1t is not possible, nor does
the constitution require that this freedom
and equality of election shall be perfect
one. No human law, affected, as it mus.
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
ground to pronounce law unconstitutional
unless it is clear and palpable abuse..of the
power in its exercise. Then, that election
Is tree and equal where all of the qualified
electors of The precinct are carefully distin-
guished from the unqualified, and are pro
tec;ed in the right to deposite their ballots
in safety, and unprejuliced 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. 1t is,
/ therefore, the duty of the Legislature to Sc
cure freedom and equality by such rcgula-
tons as will exclude the unqualified and
allow the qualified only to vote. A free
| and equal election is the end regulations
TO attain it are 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 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
tanned by diversity. If, in one part of the
State, system secures to electors 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-
tuition? Good sense, good 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 free and equal alection.
This is not new question: registry
law for the city and county of Philadelphia
was passed on the 10th of June, 1886. The
list of voters corrected and certified on the
first Tuesday Of October, one week before
the election, was made ''the only and con
''clusive evidence of thequaliications of the
electors thereof except in the case of nat
'uralization hereinbefore mentioned"
No attempt was ever made to question
the constitutionality of the registry law of
1886, though enacted under the provisions
OF the constitution of 1890 now in force. 1t
was in force when. the convention to amend
the constitution sat in 1878, and entered
largely into its discussions The attention
of the convention was thoroughly aroused
to it. In committee of the Whole, on the
committee on the ninth article, Mr.. Steri-
gere, of Montgomery, moved to amend the
fifth section by adding provision for uni
formity in regulations for elections. 1t 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 eqnal, Mr. Stcrigere, of Montgom-
cry, moved to amend the said section by
adding to the end thereof the words as fol-
lows. viz: The election lars shall be mi
Jorne throughout the State, and no greater
ar other restrictions shall be imposed upon
the electors IN any city, county, or district
dtaR are imposed on tie electors of erery
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 NJ.
Scott, of the city of Philadelphia, SAID this
amendment was fully discussed in the com
mittee of the whole 1t should be under
stood, he said, that its effect 1coald be to de
stroy tie registry Ia1c IN the city and county
Of PtiIadelphia. Mr.. Charles Brown of the
county of Philadelphia, said he knew no
reason why the law 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 vote of 90 TO ia 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 1870, TO wit
that elections shall be free and equal p"
This was no party vote-the relative strength
of parties in the convention being s.. and &c
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
&c IL oF NJ