Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1869-06-23
Judge sharswood-The Registry Law.

Iact tnat every attempt 10 prevent Jrduua-
lent voting comes from Republican Legls-
lature, and must inevitably encounter oppo-
sition from the Democratic party? Why Is
this? That the worst class of our popula-
tion votes with the Democrats we all know,
but it is possible that there are not enough
honest men in that party to break the mo-
notonous continuity Of opposition to such
benifcent legislation? Or does member
ship in the Democratic praty and association
with its members, necessarily deaden or de-
stroy all sense of shame, and all feeling of
honesty? 1t seems almost impossible that
such can be the effect of belonging 20 that
party: and yet it is impossible to account
for their wild fury over every attempt to Sc
cure fair election on any other theory.
In 1867 the Republican Legislature pass
ed bill to prevent rauds on the ballot box.
The Democracy at once made up a case to
contest its 'constitutionality,' and deci-
sion annuling the law was pronounced by a
Supreme bench composed. in part, of men
of such social respectability as JudgeThomp-
son and Judge Sharswood. That two such
men could be brought to hold an attempt
to put down fraud-fraud of the most far
reaching and dangerous character-uncon-
stItutional, must bear out the hypothesis
that villiany and Democracy have become
synonymous terms. At the session of the
last Legislature another law was passed
with the same object and it was carefully
fro to ha Oh; e Il,
cratic Supreme judges urged against its
predecessor, but it cannot escape their par
tisan venom. Another case has been made
d2 involving the constitutionality of the law
OF last winter, and it has been on trial be-
fore Judge Sharswood, sitting in Nia Piius.
The remembrance of this same Judge in the
same court manufacturing thousand voters
day by fraud, must clearly foreshadow the
Fate of the registry bill now before him.
If any doubts existed as to what Shars-
wood would do they are quickly dissipated
on reading the report of this proceeding
had before his Honor. By an understand
ing of counsel the case was not to be brought
up until the court sat az Janc, so that the
case might receive the consideration due to
Its importance from full bench. In ac-
cordance with this tacit understanding the
counsel for the defense were unprepared,
and declined to participate formally in the
trial-we beg pardon-the proceedings At
one stage OF these, the arrangement was al
luded to, and the Judge given politely to
understand that the preparations for trial
were incomplete, and the hint was thrown
out with professional delicacy that the
present farce was incapable of anything
more serious than forestalling the Judge
ment of the court, and prejudicing the case
from professional standpoint.
These mild and delicate reminders of
counsel seem to have disturbed the Judge in
an extraordinary degree, so much so indeed,
that he forgot his politeness as well as his
place. He retorted insolently that he
would sit, and he would hear the cause he
would do his duty" and he would sac
cept the responsibility, and more swagger
1 OF same kind. From all which we can easi-
| ly gather that Judge Sharswood has per-
mltted this case to be stolen before single
judge, himself, the worst man in our knowl-
edge TO do justice where politics are involv-
| ed, out of its regular course, against the ar
rangcmeht of counsel, and before tribunal
bent on settled course and partisan de-
clsion before the trial commenced.
Let Mr.. Justice Sharswood go on. The
full bench will soon convene and the high
tone of that dangerous old traitor to his
country may yet provoke the power of the
Legislature to impeach him, and bring on
his head the merited disgrace of standing
to answer as culprit for some of the out
RACES he has been guiltyof on the woolsack.