Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1880-05-13

less he makes the proof required in the
fourth section, which Ii that person
who is not registered must in order to
be entitled TO vote furnish his own
written affidavit and the affidavit of
another citizen of the precinct contain
ing proofs Of his qualifications TO vote.
The provisions OF this act are so clear
that there seems to be no room for any
misconstruction under it. plain con.
struction of the act permits any citizen
to determine, by an examination of the
records at any election, who are illegal
voters.
DECISIONS BEARING ON THE CASE.
Mr.. Beltzhoover cited q number of
decisions in the courts bearing on this
portion of the law and the constructions
which have been made of it. Judge
Harding has held that it ia the right of
any citizen to examine the records in
the office of the Commissioner or Pro.
thonotary. This view of the law is sus.
tanned in large number of cases, par.
ticular reference being had TO the deci-
sion of Judge Wetmore, who holds
clearly the same doctrine that unregis.
tered voters who do not make affidavits
are illegal. This is particularly to be
observed for the reason that it is decid.
ed by the same Judge who delivered
the opinion in the court below in
Wheelock's case. which is cited on the
other side and held by the minority to
rule the case otherwise. Mr.. Beltz.
hoover thinks the position of the ma
jority-namely, that the election should
be referred back to the peoples a
sound one. McCrary gives this as q
rule to be followed in all cases where
such new election would not be
entirely inconvepient. At the time the
report was made, in February last, there
was an election approaching in the
State, but now the time has long since
passed and q separate election for this
purpose would be decidedly inconven.
lent.
CURTIN DULY ELECTED.
The new election being out of the
question, McCrary's other rule, that of
dividing the illegal votes by some
arbitrary rule, is cited. Mr.. Beltzhoov.
er presents four statements, based on
the testimony to show that Curtin was
duly elected. BY the first he has n
majority of ls4, by the second of 1870,
by the third of Sc, by the fourth. de-
ducting all close questions of fact. he is
elected by a majority of II. These
statements are based, he says, upon
common sense rules of testimony and
are more consistent with justice and
fairness than any division of the votes
by an arbitrary rule. Yocum has lived
in the district but short time, has
been Republican and could not,
therefore, expect any Democratic votes,
and could not expect Republican votes,
because he stood upon a platform
directly antsgonistic to the principles
OF that party. Curtin was the regular
Democratic nominee in q strongly Dem.
ocratic district and had been for some
years in harmony with the Democratic
party. Mr.. Beltzhoover concludes that
Curtin must have received fair major.
ity Of all the votes cast. He says:
If, therefore, the House shall concur in
the report of the majority of the commit
tee 10 refer the case back to the people, IL
will decide rightfully. If, on the other
hand, the great public Inconvenience and
expense of a new election induces the
House TO decide that the contest should
be ended here and now, let IL decide TO
seat the contestant. This last conclusion
is supported by the law and by the facts
and by the clearly prepondersting pre-
sumptions and circumstances and sur
roundings of the case.