Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1883-07-11
ANOTHER VETO FILED.
The Governor Declines 10 Sign
the Bill AboliShing the Office
Of Jury Commissioner.

HARRISBURG, July 3.-Governor
Pattison to-day vetoed the bill abolish
ing the office of Jury Commissioner.
Following is copy:
| herewith file in the Office of the
Secretary of the Commonwealth with
my objections thereto Senate bill No.
26O, "An act to repeal an act, entitled
an act for the better and more impartial
selection of persons to serve as jurors in
each of the counties of this Common
wealth, approved the 10th day of April,
1867, and to repeal supplement there
to approved the 18th day of February,
1871, and to provide for the selection
of persons to serve as jurors in each of
the counties in the Commonwealth"
/ am not convinced that this bill, with
its attempted revival of the act of 1884,
would furnish better mode of select
ing jurors than that now in practice.
It's purpose is to abolish the Office of
Jury Commissioner and to have the
jurors selected by the County Commits
sioners. 1t is doubtful whether the
change would be beneficial on the score
of economy, for as long as the compen-
sation of County Commissioners is not
in the form of a salary they would get
their per diem compensation for this
work just as Jury Commissioners do.
From 1884 to 1857 jurors were
selected by the Sheriff and County
Commissioners. A change was then
made by the enactment of the law of
1867, which established the Office of
Jury Commissioner and provided that
all of the qualified electors shall vote
for one person only for Jury Commits
sioner. 1t gave the selection of jurors
to these two Jury Commissioners and
the President Judge of the Court.
This was thought at the time to be a
law that would insure fairness and inn
partiality, from the fact that the Jury
Commissioners would be of opposing
political procliyities and from the gen.
eral confidence in the integrity of the
Judges. The bill before me proposes
to lodge the selection of jurors in the
hands of the County Commissioners,
and only in certain contingencies is the
President Judge or additional Law
Judge to be called in. am not con-
vinced that this would be wise change.
Certainly no loud complaints have been
heard against the operation of the pres
ent law.
Iwould hesitate, however, if the bill
were in proper shape, to set my indi'
vidual judgment against the judgment
of the Legislature; but the bill is fatally
defective, in that it is in contravention
| of section of article of the Constitu-
tion. 1t seeks to revive the act of 1884
by its title, and does not set forth at
length what provisions of that act are
to be revived and re-enacted. The sec.
tion of the Constitution is in these words:
''No law shall be revived, amended or
the provisions thereof extended or con-
ferred by reference to its title only, but
| so much thereof as is revived, amend
ed, extended or conferred shall be re-
enacted or published at length" This
is one of the most judicious provisions
of the Constitution. 1t was intended
to strip every statute of all obscurity
and to save the people from searching
through other statutes for its meaning.
In other words it would compel the
law-making power to make every law
a law by itself. The Importance OF
observing its provisions strictly cannot
be pressed too strongly. On account
of this Constitutional defect l am CON-
PEELED to withhold my approval from
the bill. ROBERT E. PATTIsoN.