The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-02-14
FIRST EDITION N
I'D Il g Il ID Il ID.
! THE END OF THE ROW CONTEST.
The Supreme Court sustains the Re-
publican Contestants = Judges
Thompson and sharswoed
Dissent-The Majority
Opinion in Full.

a Tn the matter of the appeals OF Sheppard,
Barper and others from the decree of the Court
Of Common Pleas ousting them from the offices
20 which they claimed to have been elected In
October 1868, Judge Agnew this morning an
pounced the opinion of majority of the Court
. djemissing the exceptions taken by the appel
lants, and affirming tn the decree OF the court
below. Chief Justice Thompson dissented from
this decision, delivering an opinion in which
Judge Sharswood concurred. The titles of the
|cases are as follows
TO the Court Of quarter Sessions OF Philadelphia
David p. Weaver vs.. Samuel Bell ct al: Certtorart
4 to the Court of Common Pleas OF Philadelphia
ALBERT W. Fletcher VS.. Samuel Bell ct al. Cevtio-
ra1i to the Court OF Common Pleas OF fhlaoeiphia
GeSrqe Getz vs.. Samuel Bell ct al Ceytiorari to
'ng UTna 7 B9rger VS. samuel Bell eta CsrtiorGri
TO the Court Of Common Pleas OF Philadelphia
Joh5 NJ Melloy vs.. Samuel Bell ct al. certiorari
4 to the Court OF Common Pleas of Philadelphia
comfy. ,o,,. ~, ,r,v cf,rpr
i Apnew J-These are important cases. They are
potca controversies. to be met in spirit OF can
did inquiry The contest Oh an eecon M s y
theIr sufrages have been thwarted by fraud or mis-
take the constituted tribunal is the Court OF Com
mon Pleas or the Court OF Quarter Sessions as the
By the acts of July 2, 1882 and February 8, 1854,
the Court is to proceed upon the merits OF the
plant, and determine finally concerning the same,
according to the laws OF this Commonwealth" No
neal ~ allowed and its decisions are final Conse-
quently the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over
the attempt to press into service the act OF 1867,
as giving an appeal lacked the earnestness OF con-
! victon, and needs no reiutaton. IL gives no ap-
sent excludes the presumption that any other appeal
The fnality of the acts OF 1889 and 1854 remains,
and there is no implication Of an appeal, for there
is no incongruity in this respect 1t is only In
Of a strong repugnancy that a former law Is repealed
6y SUBSEQUENT act Street VS.. Commonwealth,
VI ss, 200; Bank VS.. Commonwealth, 10 Ban, 449;
Brown vs. Commonwealth, Helms, 423.
Why then have the merits been so strongly urged?
| Why have the cases been termed appeals and the
parties appellants and appellees? Nothing but con-
fusion can flow Irem these designations. The GER
tiorari is Unknown writ, bringing up the record
only The parties are plaintis and defendants nd in
ment on the facts was therefore outside Of the re-
0'I That the merits belong exclusively to the court
below, and cannot reviewedherers settled ques-
h ton. Carpenters case, Harris 4s6. The court
that "havng no appellate jurisdiction it could not
be respectful or proper to express an extra judicial
In like manner this Court quashed the eertorari in
Ewing VS.. Wiley Wright, ss4. sour duty tsald
mtted, we cannot retry the case on the evidence,
hut can only consider whether 1t was tried before
hr0gs up ana % n Clear This is yey
plainly stated by Woodward, j., In Chase vs. Miller,
5Wrght, 4l2 l8, a contested sI election s0t case as
says:-"But this statement is to be received with
very important qualifcatlon-that the errors to be
reviewed shall appear the record. This Is neces
sary to all appellate jurisdiction where cases come
up by writs OF error or eertiorgrL The only
or 'G the opinion Of an inferior court upon
what is technically called the record is by
Sy the Judges, and as bills of exception are not
allowed in the Quarter Sessions, no question which
arises out OF the we IN erarsri ss oe gO 20
proceedings Of the Quarter Sessions In road cases in
pauper cases, in contested election cases, and In
u of that court, the writ brings up nothing but
what appears on the record without bill OF
the opinion of the court is brought with the
record by certiorari has been reiterated over and
over again. refer TO few OF the recent cases to
show that we have not departed from the doctrine
of our predecessors: sors:-Commonwealth VS.. Gurley
Wright, s92. Indictment, per Thompson, j.; Church
son, j.; Oakland W. vs. herman, 9 r r: Smith
1ys ward 'HSc? q J PlunSet Creek vs. Farea p
Smith. Pauper case, per Strong, ]. In Pennsyl
/ vania Railroad VS.. German Lutheran Congrega
tion, p. f.. Smith, AS, a strong effort wal
made to get before us the merits OF view anc
assessment by railroad jury, and the subject wa
again examined elaborately, and the same conclu
sion reached. The strenuous effort TO induce Il
review the testimony, calculations, and opinion o
the Court in these cases was therefore contrary Il
the settled law OF the writ OF certiorari.
This excludes from our consideration the report
the examiner, all the calculations, and all the c0ur
did either by striking out or purging polls. The
are not in the record and all assignments OF erro
forwarded on them fall.
Putting aside, then, these lures to error, the re
naming assignments may be treated under thre
heads: those affecting jurisdiction, those relating
the procedure OF the court and those relating to tn
frame Of the complaint. This concerns the city OH
GERS only. The act OF 1854 requires that sat eas
TWO OF the compainants shall take and subscribe q
oath or affirmation that the facts set forth In sue
complaint are true" The oath to the petitions read
hat the facts true 10 the best Of their knoi1edG
aud belief" This addition, 1t is asserted, opens th
strength OF the Oaththat the law requires the abst
lutte truth of the facts TO be sworn to- and not th
best knowledge and behef of the afilaDts. Does th
law mean absolute verify? This is the question.
The intention OF the law given must be discovers
not only from the words but from the object OF Oh
law, the special purpose OF the oarh, the nature
its subject, and the character and Jurisdiction OF Vi
tribunal The object OF the law is 10 give the peop
remedy. IL Is their appeal from the Election Boar
TO the Court from an undue election or false r
turn The law Is, therefore, remedial, and to
construed to advance the remedy The special pu
pose OF the oath Is to initiate this remedy-to give
the impress of good faith and probable cause. II
proof OF the facts must follow not precede the cor
paint. 1t Is contrary to our sense OF justice and
ali analogy to say that remedy shall not begin T.
the case has been full proved. The law being rem
dial and the oath initial only, 1t is to be suppos
the Legislature, representing the people, intended
subject the remedy to unreasonable or impossib
The remedy would be worthless and the Legls
ture stultIhed. Correct Interpretation will show d
result. This brings to the subject OF the oath
a city OF 500 900 inhabitants, embracing surface
many square miles, no two nor two hundred m
can be invested with the ubquity and the omnseien
10 see and to know all the facts In every preciI
necessary 10 contest the poll OF q single ward.
sides there are essential facts they cannot know p
sonally.r They cannot pry into the ballots. I'll
n one hundred and 6fty-three unqualified pers,
voted certain ticket, but they cannot kn
il: vet this knowledge essential TO
n Ss nbiGuitons as the fraud and as thorough as
y whole number OF voters their residencee quaii
lions, and ballots, and comprehend all the lnlaw