The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1869-07-16

not impossible, to fulfill these condi-
tions. No such requirement is made
in any other part of the State, not
i'll Pittshurg, nor in any other large
city. There the testimony of unequal
ified electOr is sufficient, whether he be
a resident in the division or elsewhere,
and that at the polls on the day of cleo
ton, when of course the witness will
not be required to vouch his belief in
the existence of qualification IN future.
But even if one Of this unfortunate
class Of persons-being private resi-
dent, or boarder at private boarding
hOuse-finds his name ON the division
transcript list he is safe. The division
canVasSers, at their session, on the tenth
day before the election, or at any ad-
jOurned session to be held on the eighth
day, may in his absence, and without
notice to him strike his name from the
list by drawing a line in red ink
through the same, upon the testimony
Of two reputable citizens qualified vo-
ters Of the division whose names APP
pear on the said transcript, under the
head of private honSeholders, to be Civ
ia under oath or affirmation, that such
person is not resident of the division,
or is otherwise disqualified by law
from voting at said election (Section
36). If he has procured himself to be
placed on the extra assessment list by
the production Of the extraordinary ev-
idence required for that, he is still at
the mercy of the district canvasSers,
who, in his absence and without no.
tice, yes, and without evidence, may
strike his name from the list. 1.-The
aid canvassers shall also examine and re-
tr.a.. hpnLrS Gf fhniF
respective divisions, and shall strike
theTefrom the names of all persons
who are not residing in the divis-
tiOnn Section 3d. Is it necessary to do
more than simply recite these provis-
ions? Need | add, that in my judg-
ment, they are unreasonable, contrary
to the first dictates of natural justice,
and unconstitutional, because they
unnecessarily embarrass and prevent
the citizen from that free and full OPP
portunity of qualifying himself for the
exercise of the elective franchise, which
the Constitution guarantees to him?
After all the complicated machinery
which has been constructed in order to
make up the final list of voters-the
original assessors division transcript
prior toJune-the board of aldermen
the extra assessment between the first
and twentieth days of September, for
| five consecutive days, to be appointed
by that bOard-the division canvassers,
with their revision of the list, on the
tenth and eighth days before the elec-
ton, it is still perhaps question upon
the construction of the act, whether a
duly qualified electOr, whose name is
not on the registry, may or may not
prove his qualification TO the election
officers, and vote at the polls. In the
fourth section, which relates to the 9TH
er parts of the State, it is expressly de-
clared that on the day of election any
! person whose name is not on the asses
sors' list may prove his qualification
and be admitted to vote. The evidence
which he is required to produce is pOr-
| ticalarly described. There is no such
provision in the sections which relate
to Philadelphia. The evidence which
shall be necessary before the assessors
and division canVaSSerS is carefully
specified, as we have seen; but there is
is not a word aS to what shall be the
evidence at the polls to the election Of
ficers, except the list and some things
required in addition TO reproduction
of tax receipts with proof Of identity,
andOfcertificateso standardization with
out proof of identity. 1t may perhaps
be argued, that, inaSmuch as he is not
expressly excluded, a qualified voter
whose name is not on the list Will still
have right to vote on giving the evil
dence prescribed by the General Elec-
tion Law of July ,, 1889, section 66
tPamph. l.. 534), which in this respect
is not inconsistent with the provisions
of this act, and, therefore, is not re-
pealed. But this would present very
gross incongruity that two witnesses
and of very special character, shall
be required to place name on the list
in advance, while at the polls the
same thing can be done by the testi-
mony of one competent Witness, who Is
qualified electOr, and who need not be
a resident of the division. | conclude,
therefore, that when it is declared in
the thirty-siXth section, that the list
when finally completed by the division
canVaSoerS, ''shali constitute the regis
try of citizens qualified to vote i'll the
said divisions respectively at the next
general election" (section 3O), it is an
affirmative necessarily pregnant with
negative. If this be the true con-
struction of the act, then my settled
conviction is that on that ground alone
. it is unconstitutional. Election day is
the proper time to prove the qualitica-
tions of an eIector, if required by an
inspector or challenged by citizen;
for, from the very nature OF the facts
which make up the qualifications, they
cannot be proved before. Residence
in the State one year, and i'll the elec-
tion district ten days, both periods of
time to be Immediately preceding the
election, are past facts only complete
and susceptible of proof then. No pre-
vions proof can anticipate and take
the place of it. 1t is enough to say
that the Constitution does not require
the election to have the constant inten-
ton of continued residence in the
State during the year, or in the dis
trict during the ten days. At the COM
mencement of and during all that term
he may intend to remove, and yet in
fact continue to reside in the same place.
If he removes from one district TO "a
mother during the ten days he can
neither vote at the old nor the new
district. He loses his vote. A legis-
lative attempt to remedy this by the
joint resolution of April 26, 1874,
(pamph, l.. 605l, was very properly de-
cided to be unconstitutional in EWing's
case, @. S., Philadelphia, July y,
1862, Ms. Although a person may
have truly sworn ten days before that
it was then his intention to continue
his residence in the district until the
day of felection, he may change his
mind and remove the next day. His
witnesses may depose, with great sim
cerity, that they verify believe that,
ON election day, he will be qualified
voter, yet the result may show that
they were mistaken in their belief
On what principle can an elector who
proves on that day that he possesses
every qualification prescribed by the
Constitution, be deprived of his elec-