The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1869-07-16
VOL. 64.--WHOLE No. 5,498.

and has paid within two years a State
or county tax, assessed at least ten
days before the election. The tax may
have been personal one, assessed up
on him al the previous trienniai assess
ment, or it may be upon property own
ed by him. TO reject such a vote is to
deprive him of an undoubted right; it
is TO violate the Constitution, which
says positively, imperatively, he shall
enjoy the rights of an elector. / need
not add that if, in consequence of the
prohibition contained in this act, he
was not assessed len days before the
election, this system, which denies
him that privilege, deprives him just
as effectually by that means of his e.
lective franchise as by rejecting his
vote if he had been fully qualified
There is another matter which seems
to need some explanation. After de-
claring, in the thirty-sixth session,
that the final list shall constitute the
registry of citizens qualified to vote,
the act proceeds, provided, that if
any person so registered shall cease to
be a resident of the division before the
election, he shall not be entitled to
vote therein" Yet the very next Sec
ton enacts with equal positiveness
that 1.-THE said register shall be the only
evidence that the persons whose names
are found thereon have resided for ten
days Immediately preceding the said
election in the said division, and no
voter whose name is so registered shall
be challenged at the polls on any ques-
ton of residence" l do not know
how these two provisions are to be rec
Onciled, or which is to give way, the
first or the last, nor is it necessary now
to consider that question. II will GER
tainly be a very difficult one to decide,
ifit should ever arise. / do believe,
however, after the fullest reflection,
that an act of the legislature which
makes a registry previously made up,
conclusive evidence of the qualifica-
tions of all those whose names are on
it, whether as to residence or anything
else, as contrary to the Constitution as
an act which undertakes to exclude
those whose names are not found on it.
On the whole, / am clearly of the
opinion that the act of Assembly ap-
proved April II. 1869, is uneonstitution-
al. / have not felt it to be my duty to
examine particularly the provisions
applicable to the other parts of the
State. AS was held last year by the
Supreme Court, in relation to the act
of April 4, l868-because it undertakes
to establish two different systems-the
entire act, at least, so far as elections
are concerned, except the first clause
ofthe fortieth section, must fall under
the same condemnation. There
appear to be some sections in re-
lation to other matters upon which |
am not called to give any Judgment.
The forty-third section, which repeals
such other laws as are inconsistent
with the provisions of the act, is Of
course, to be construed to mean such
provisions as are constitutional and
have the force of laws. ''This conclu-
sion,' as was said by Chief Justice
Thompson, in Page et al. VS.. Allen
et a., ''leaves all the election laws in
force which were intended to be super
| seded by this act.
Injunction awarded, upon security
being entered in the sum of one thous-
and dollars.