The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-07-02
get rid Of an obnoxious section, even If there were

get rid OF obnoxious section, even II there were
such.
1t contains nothing which conflicts which the po-
litic RIGHTS Of any class of citizens. II IL does the
party injured has his remedy either by mandamus
or action for damages II is simply law Tor the
uf the five judges sitting at Nisi Prus decided,
year ago, that registry law is constitutional law.
See Judge Reads opinion In Page vs. Allen. The
Registry law OF 1886 was in operation for three years.
and nobody doubted its validity.
IL was not doubted by the convention OF 1888. It
was doubtless suggested by the remarks OF chief
Justice Tilghman, in Catlln us. Smith q s. & r.,
showing with certainty every person who en-
titled to vote TO secure peace and certainty and TO
prevent tumut and confusion at elections, was not
considered unconstitutional by that pure and emil
nent Judge. IL was not considered unconstitutional
by the trainers of the present constitution, the
debates and votes in the convention OF S3s3o clearly
show.
The Registry Law of 1885, was precisely what
Judge Sharswood complains OF and condemns. 1t
established 'for the people of Philadelphia one rule,
and for the people OF Pttsburg another There
attempt to destroy it in the convention by so
amending the Constitution as TO make the law un-
constitutional. The attempt was exposed by Mr..
John NJ Scott, afterwards Mayor of Philadelphia, as
appeal by the Debates vol. XII PIP. 249.
Thus IL is made plain that the opinion of the
learned Judge at Nsi Prfus is without foundation.
Ii is opposed by that OF one OF the most lustrlous
iudges who ever sat upon this bench: nv every law
on the subject of elections that has ever existed in
this Commonwealth from the days OF Penn, ana by
the very trainers OF the Constitution to whom the
question was presented, and by whom IL was care
fully discussed, considered, and settled.
DHueT dIBuIltHt'
Court of Quarter SessiOns-Judge Ludlow.
THE GRAND JURY VS.. THE PUBLIC PRESS.
To-day the Grand Jury came into Court and asked
the following questions of his HONOR
Can the Grand jury take official action against the
propretors Of public journals for the publication of
articles which, in their judgment, reflect unwarrant-
ably upon themselves or upon the Court?
How far If at all, can the Grand Jury take official
action in cases where violations OF law are by COM
mon rumor said to have been committed by indi-
viduals or by corporations, where no complaint has
been made under oath by any prosecutor before
magistrate according to the usual practice in crmi-
nal cases
In answer to these questions the Judge said:-
That at common law contempt of Court could be
summariy punished whether committed i'm or out OF
the presence Of the Court But in 1886 the Legislature
passed act circumscribng the power of the Court
in this respect, and limited 1t TO the therein
specified. (Purd. Dig. p. 1851
But the law has been equally protective to the
press and the citizen.
AS to the powers of the Grand Jury, they are by
no means so extensive as is supposed. According
TO Judge King they are confined to cases In which
the Grand Jury act "from their own knowledge or
observation" or from matters given them in charge
by the Court, and the Court has no power except in
cases 'of great riots that shake the social fabric
carrying terror and dismay among citizens general
public nuisances affecting public health multiplied
and fagrant vices" and the like.
The Courts never acts against individuals charged
with specific crimes; II such crimes have in any
been committed, every magistrate may issue a war
rant and the Court is open to hear criminal charges
in all cases, but in every such instance the party
upon the record, who may If he swear falsely, be
indicted for perjury, and also be liable in suit for
damages.
1t is serious offense for any person to attempt d
recty to influence grand jurors in their action in
any question before them. II any such an attempt
has been made and is within your knowledge,
upon the fact being established by the oath of one or
of your number taken before you, present
ment may be made to the Court whereupon an in
dictment for embracery may be preferred, and if
the party shall upon trial be convicted, the Ofense
will most certainly be punished according TO law.