The Bloomfield times. [volume] (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1867-187?, 1872-06-04

now were these legal influences 10 DC re-
PEELED, for until this was done, we have
seen that Shively was not entitled to vote.
1t could have been done by proof that in
point of fact the person offering to vote was
separated from his wife, and that she was
not living under his protection and support,
and that the relations between her and him
were such that the usual consequences
flowing from the marriage did not in point
of fact exist. This Mr.. Shively could do
by proving before this board by competent
evidence that these presumed relations had
fully ceased. He offered to do this by his
own oath. You will remember that the life
of Mr.. Shively was quite wandering, living
here and there, and having in fact no per-
manent abiding place. He had no family
in Bloomfield, kept no house, had no prop
erty, and in short he seemed under the
proof to be but a soiourner in our midst
Under this state of things the board de-
manded proof, and as we before remarked,
he offered himself as q witness. Now, as
a witness, what could he prove? The law
permitted him to prove by his own testimo-
ny, that he had resided within the State
for one year. It also allowed him to prove
the bona fde actuality of his residence with
in the district in pursuance of his lawful
calling, and the payment of taxes within
two years, and this is all that the law did
allow him to prove by his own oath. He
was excused by the board from proving by
other witnesses his ten days residence with
in the district. Then, was he himself
competent witness to prove his separa-
tion from his wife, his non-intercourse with
her, and the fact generally that the family
relation had been broken up, and its reason
able presumptions as to domicil and home
repelled? He was not competent to prove
any fact touching his right to vote by his
own testimony except SO far as allowed to
do so, by the act of Assembly, or the pro-
visions of the fundamental law. Therefore
if competent to prove separation from his
wife by his own oath, it must be found in
the clause, allowing him to swear to the
bona fdes of his residence within the dis
trict. But his residence within the district
for ten days might be bona fde and yet, not
be entitled to vote, because his domicil was
elsewhere, and if he was required by law to
make proof by another witness of his res
idence within the district for ten days.
Why should he not be required also, by
disinterested witnesses TO prove that his
| family relations had been destroyed; be-
cause this vital fact became the pivotal
point on which the right in this case turned.
The right to testify in ones own behalf is
derogatory to the common law, and only
obtains where statute allows it and when
not specifically permitted does not exist.
There is no statute that allows it, except as
we have already stated and we are there
fore of the opinion that it was the duty of
Mr. Shively to have shown the fact, for he
claimed that so far as his right to vote was
concerned, he asked to be treated as an un-
married man, because of the utter severance
| of the marital relations between him and
his wife, SO far as their domiciling together
was concerned and we have grave doubts
whether he could prove it by his own oath.
If he had proved this fact by competent ev-
idence, that is by other witnesses than
himself, he would have been beyond doubt
competent voter, and it would have been
the duty of the election officers to have re-
ceived his ballot. But this was neither
done, nor offered to be done except by his
oath and the proof shows that no other
witness was sworn in the case.
Or had Shively been house keeper within
the district, and carrying on business re-
quiring his personal supervision and atten-
tion, so that the fact was either notorious to
the officers themselves, or susceptible of
proof then domicil would have been es-
tablished within the district and it would
have repelled the presumptions arising
from the fact of his being married man,
with his family domiciled elsewhere. By
such notorious fact all questions as to any
| OLner uOmlcll WOulu VANISH.
1t is also principle of evidence that no
record of a court can be proved by parol OF
word of mouth, the only way it can be
proved is by the production of copy of
the record, and so rigidly do the election
laws insist upon this kind of proof that
q naturalized citizen must produce copy
of the court before which he was made a
citizen, before the board ofelection officers,
and this he must do every year until he has
voted ten years in the very same district, al
though no man during all this period, had
ever questioned his right to vote.
This shows, that whilst the right of
suffrage is very dear to every citizen enti-
tied thereto, the laws guard the value of a
vote, by carefully protecting the lawful
voter against fraudulent practices, and the
danger of the will of the citizen being null
lifted by the doubtful ballots of the way
farer ON his pilgrimage through the land
The right would soon become valueless, if
the ballots of all presenting should be re-
ceived without question, challenge or pro
test The only evidence offered before this
board to show separation was parol evidence
that Shively was obtaining a divorce
through the courts of this county We
have already said that the only evidence of
the proceedings in divorce, which the law
allowed this board to listen to, would have
been a certified copy of the record of the
said court, which was not produced al
though the record of this proceeding was
only separated from the scene of this con-
test, by brick partition.
Then, gentlemen, even had the proof offer
ed by Shively been sufficient to establish
his right to vote, and these officers had in
good faith and to the best of their judg-
ment, knowledge and information, honestly
believed Shively was not entitled to vote,
and for that reason rejected his vote, they