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

ct al. VS.. Allen ct al, and a majority of the
court composed of j Justices Strong, Reed,
and myself held that the yower existed ;
but Justice Strong thought the act of 1868
unconstitutional in single, but essential
particular, by requiring proof of a residence
in the district longer than the constitutional
period of ten days. That law was, there
fore, held to be unconstitutional by major
ity, Justice Reed and | dissenting, The
decision, therefore, has no bearing on the
general question.
That a registry law to identify and dis
tinguish true electors is constitutional we
cannot doubt, and that uniform regulations
are not enjoined by the constitution is be
yond all dispute
But is there necessity for local legisla-
ton adapted to the city of Philadelphia,
not suitable to otherparts of the State? If
not, why is city charter granted, with all
its large powers of local government, its
special provisions for police and for conduct?
Where population greatly abounds vice and
virtue have their greatest extremes. =
simple rural population needs no night
police and no lock up. RogueS and stru.np-
cts do not nightly traverse the deserted
highways of the farmer. Low inns. restau-
rants, sailors boardinghouses, and houses
of i'll fame do not abound in rural precincts,
ready to pour out on election day their pes
tilent hordes Of imported bullies and yaga
bonds, and to cast them multiplied upon the
polls to vote. In large cities such things
exist, and its proper population, therefore,
needs great protection, and local legislation
must come to their relief The freedom
and equality of the ballot-box must be pro-
tected from the local causes which mar and
destroy free and equal election What
crime have the freemen of Philadelphia
committed that their voice at the ballot box
may be stihed by the fraud or force which
springs out of their local circumstances. and
yet the legislature be powerlcss to relieve
them? In the language of another, that
would be Ito place the vicious vagrant, the
wandering m0bs, the Tartar hordes of our
large cities, on level with the virtuous and
good man-on a level with the industrious,
the poor, and the rich. Is that a wise and
just Interpretation of the constitution,
which opens the polls of a large city to such
imported hirelings and vagabonds without
a home, by adhering to an uniformity of
regulation unsuited to the city on the one
hand or to the country on the other? Is
the constitution of Pennsylvania so deform-
ed and sterile that her laws cannot protect
the ballot box of city from falsehood and
fraud because they admit but one unbroken
system for the State? Such an interpreta-
ton of the constitution is wanting in merit,
and can only operate as an incentive to
fraud. How, then, can the freedom and
equality of elections be secured in a great
city, if from the force of local circumstances
the place Of the real electors are usurped. if
tie ballot box can be stuffed with impunity
or if suffrage can be exercised only at the
risk of violence OF life
Thus the ground on which the case was
placed at nisi prus is swept away; the pos
tulate of the learned Judge being that uni
formity of regulation throughout the State
is demand of the constitution as the
equivalent fequality of election. Butwhen
it is shown that the constitution nowhere
demands uniform regulations, and to the
contrary, that the very equality of elections
demands difference in regulation to over
come the obstacles to equality and fairness
in the city, his fundamental position is over
turned, and with it the entire argument
built upon it. Then of wha{ service is it to
display the difference in this Law between
for the State? Let them be ten, or ten
times ten, it is not their difference which
proves their unconstitutionality- difference
in regulation is not want of equality in the
election. He who would prove them to be
unlawful must show wherein they subvert
the rights of the electors themselves. If
the prevalence of fraud, corruption, or force
in the city makes the law more rigid and
exacting in order to determine the rights of
the lawful electors, it may be hardship,
but it is not caused by the law, but by the
crimes which make the law necessary for
their protection.
When the Legislature possesses an un-
doubted authority to regulate, such as in
this case, It's discression is not tha subject of
review. This is expressed by Black, j., in
Sharpless Us. the City of Philadelphia, 9
Harris, in these words: There is another
rule which must govern in cases ike this,
viz: that we can declare an act of Assembly
void only when it violates the constitution
clearly, paLpobly, plainly, and in such man
ner as to leave no doubt or hesitation in our
minds. This principle is asserted by judges
of every grade, both in the Federal and in
the State courts, and by some of them it is
expressed with much solemnity of language
He refers then to Cranch, 81; 4 Dallas,
IA; Is S. & R., ITS; II S. & R., 339; 4
Binney, l23. See also the opinion of Shars-
wood, j., in Green vs. The Commonwealth,
decided at Harrisburg in 1868.
We come now to the question. What pro-
visions OF this law for the regulation of the
city elections, if any, are subversive of the
rights of city elections? The number of
.ha,a ob;a.tad to IL faU after hayipp die