Daily Republican., 1881-04-07

Thompson, wh0s lulnt CAf vi IutlcT-
son vs.. Barlow, 40 1Snusylvlnia Stat",
54, decided in 1889, says
fs's'It may be safely assured that what
ever einbarraSseS or renders difficult Of
enjoyment un undoubted right, just so
far il impairS the right Itself TO speak
without circumlocution and TO the point
under consideration, it seems to me an
incontrovertiblc position, that whatever |
legislation cmbarrassts and renders |
more difficult than is requisite TO its en-
ioymrnt, the right OF IN elector TO vote, |
impairS the right itself, and aS Il C0nSc- |
ourncc Is violation Of the provisions of
the constitution on the subject This is
the doctrine of this Court nS expressed
in the Commonwealth w: Maxwell Is.
Casey, A, wherein it was said; a law
intended to take away, or unnccc>1rl-
" postpone or embarrasS the right OF
election, would b. set aside as unconSti-
tutional This was repeated. as sound
in the opinion of this Court, in Page ct
al, W. Allen 1T nj, 3 J. y. Smith, HS,
declaring the registry Act Of 1868 I'M
constitutional and void. Common sense
would revolt ut any other doctrine.
That this was said of an attempted con-
struction Of law which would postpone
the election by the people OF u judge,
does not distinguislrit from the embayS
raSSnent of the right Of an elcctor in
any other c.lS", rs cOntrnded for in ar
gument
refer now 70 decision Of the same
eminent Judge, rendered in tn" case OF
PAGE W. Allen, I.VllI PcnnSyl-
yania State. 33S, decided in 1859. Chief
Justice Thompson there says OF the
Constitutional qualifications Of voters
""Therr are two Constitutional qualih-
cations necessary to b. IN "iertor. They
| are defined, fixed and enumerated in
that instrument. In tho~" Eho possess
them is vested u high, md To fre"mcn,
sacred right, of which they cannot be
divrSted by any but the power which
established them, viz: The people, in
their direct legislative capacity. This
will not b. disputed. For the orderly
exercise OF the right resulting from
these qualifications, it is admitted that
the Legislature must prescribe neCeS-
sary regulations, AZ TO the places, mode
and manner, and whatever else may be-
required to insure its full and free excr-
else. But this duty and right, Inherent
Ily imnly, that each regulation are to be
subordinate 10 the enjoyment OF th"
right, the exercise Of which i. regulated
The right must not bc impaired by the
regulation. II must II" regulation pure
ly, not destruction. II this were not Al
immutable principle, elements essen
tial TO the right itself might be invaded
frittered away, or entirely rrScindtd
under the name or prrtenSe OF rrgNla
ton, and thus would the natural nrieI
of things be- Subvrrtcd by making tn"
principal Subordinate to the accessory
TO state is TO prove this position, As a
corollary of this, no Constitution
qualification Of IN elcctor can in the
least be- abridg g"d, added to, or altered,
by legislation or the Justice "t lcGisIa
ton. Any such action would neccS
Sarily he absolutely void and of NJ
effect"
And, in conclusion, refer to !
Supreme Court decision in the State o
PENNSYLVANIA, rendered in the case o
McCattrrty vs. Guyrr, LIN Pennsyl
vana State, 100, decided i'll 1868: Th'
Court there said:
"a right conferred by the COnStitu
ton is beyond the reach Of Legislative
interference, Ii it were not SO, thcr
would bc nothing static; there woult
be no security for any right 1t is tn
nature OF u constitutional grant ofpowe
|, or of privilege that cannot br take,
away by any authority known I" tn
government. 1t involves prohibition
; of interference with il.
: | have thus, sir, discussed At SON,
, length the pending measure. hav
rndeaVOrCd to discuss it fully and fair
", and have presented, ny far a5
have been able, thr authorities which
conceive applicable to the proposition
involved. Is il not clear, in view q
the circumstances surrounding this aC
of 1873, its inherent absurdity, the de
triment il works 10 the p"Ople pccuniar
ily, in view Of thu fart that it il intend
ed to abridgc the right Of tho citizen L
,, vote,-is it not true that the act Of lS1
is utterly unjuStiliablr:
Can it be- Defended? lfSo, upon wha
grounds? II is IN unwise, it is an nm
Just and unequal law; it is II law whicl
: | believe to be- unconstitutional anC
, which is disgrace 10 our statute books
f and this pending measure is INTENDED
, to tako away its Objectionable features
Why should any member OfthiS bod,
vote against this measure" VIII it no
secure the citizen in his right 10 vote
Will it not secure to II greater cXtrn
the prompt collection of the public rev
enuc? II so, what pOrsibl" objection j.
there to the ado ptiou ot the measure" "
The act Of 1855 rs have said, ha
been used as political engine; it ha'
been put to purely partisan uses l'u'
, would warn the Democratic party o
this State that it has been welding ;
club for the purpose of destroying il
political enemies, which may ere Ion!
= he wrcstcd from its grasp. The tint
nr.y come, | think, too, before long
when the Democratic party Of thi:
State will regret tina the act Of lS1;
was not amended at this session Of tn,
legislature. This is political clul
capQblr Of being welded Ivy both par
ties; and | fear, fit passes into tn,
hanGS Of those politically oppOS,h I,
the gowrrs that be-, it will bc used.
doaa, approve Of il, myself, do moi
, approyc of the law, because think il
is wrNlg, unjust, Unequal and unCOn'
ri StltutlSlllii ana Wp'ilu D' hapIS l"
see the act amended in the manner Sug-
rested; but do bclieve the time will
+ come, and speedily, when the Demo
cratic party in this state, if it now fails
to amend this law, vii! regret It's omiS-
sion to dc 80.
.
From Delaware City.
Special Correspondence of tbe REPUBLICAN.
DELAw ARE CITY, April 9Th" mum
Der of communicates present in Christ
church last Sunday vas larger than
;, usual. After the brncdictjen had been
pronounced they passed the following
pyeamblc and resolution (mem. COM ::
WuEnEAS Ecrtain perSOns, SOmN OF