The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-02-13
The Need OF a Legal Registry Law


session, stands the passage Of just and legal
registry law. The fearful lessons of the last
election tell us, in language unmistakable, that
If we would preserve the purity Of the ballot,
protect the rights Of our citizens, and prevent
popular suffrage becoming popular farce,
some such Law SIS will require the registration
OF voters must be adopted before next
autumn. This fact must be we'll known to all
the city members, and we urge on them the
conveyance Of like knowledge to the repre-
sentatives from other portions of the State.
Let them quote the instance OF the Fourth
ward, in which more votes were polled than
all the men, women, and children in the
ward, and where over q thousand new voters
appeared between October and November.
Such an example as this will at once convince
men the most doubling that, If it is possible
to frame law which will be legal, that posi-
bility must be taken advantage of.
We would urge this, not as party mea-
sure, not because we are Republicans, but
because we are Pennsylvsnians, and cannot
forget that while party may be bens-
tted by fraud to-day, the State loses by il
always. II, therefore, such law can be
adopted, it should be done, and done with
care. In April, 1868, the Legislature passed
registry Law, which was declared unconsti-
tutional in July by the Supreme Court.
The act in question was unconstitutional. II
was badly drafted measure, and evidently
drawn MP by one who had no real knowledge
of law. But in pronouncing its decision, the
Court gave grounds for hope that while the
bill before il could not stand legal tests, yet
the idea Of such law was not repugnant
to the Constitution. The learned Judge, in
announcing the decision of the bench, said:
"We do not mean a. this moment to decide
that no constitutional registration law can be
enacted. For myself, think there might be,
and possibly in such a form as to protect the
rights OF all legal voters, and the people,
TO some extent at least, against the possibility
Of frands at the bsllot-box." 1t will, there
fore, be seen that II the errors of the old law
can be amended, and just provision made for
the protection OF, not the infringement on,
the rights OF citizens, We can have an efficient
and constitutional law. In drafting the new
law, therefore, it ia the duty of the authors,
provide one which will meet the objections of
the Supreme Court. We give to our readers
q clear idea OF what were those objections.
We will classify them as nearly as possible
First. 1t was provided by the previous law
that all citizens must appear before Board
OF Canvassers, to be appointed by the Board
of Aldermen, and get registered ten days
toEn A. IL A,xI Hhaa M
put down no name on the registry unless the
person is personally known to them as bona
fde resident of the division. This, the Court
held, was 8 qualification not required by the
Constitution. Personal acquaintance with
the canvasser might not be either easy or
desirable, and the law would thus be made
unjust, and its object be defeated.
Second. After the names were added to the
register, il Was made the duty of the
assessors 10 meet on Saturday night, and, be-
tween the hours of P. NJ. and midnight,
assess q tax on all the registered citizens. The
Court said that in large wards this would be
an imposeibility; that it was physical objec-
ton that interposed and prevented five thou
sand people being assessed in FIVE hours.
Third. When the citizen presented himself
before the canyassers, he was required to make
am affidavit that he had resided in the divi-
sion for ten days previous. As this was done
On the tenth day before the election, he would
cartainly have had to reside for twenty days
before in the division As the Constitution
nrovides that ten days residence only shall
he necessary, the extra qualification is appa-
rent and is Of course contrary to the rights of
the voter, guaranteed to him by the highest
authority Of the State.
Fourth. By the same Constitution IL is
provided that every citizen who is between
the age OF twenty-one and twenty-five shall
vote without previous payment of taxes or
assessment. This was omitted in the law,
and an assessment required Of all, whether
they be voting on age or not.
Lastly. While the former law heaped
penalty on penalty on the voter for perjury
or deceit, yet it made no provision whatever
for malfeasance on the part of the canvasser--
thus impliedly, ii not directly, putting pre-
MUM on wroDg-doing on his part, and vic.
lating every rule of Just protection to the
public.
We have thus briefly summed up the
grounds on which the former registry law was
declared illegal. Let them bs bsacons to
guide the trainers OF the much needed law at
the present session. In the new law great
care must be exercised. There is no time now
for experiments or points Of doubtful legality.
la nh ill ha -