Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1885-05-04
Che Caufaster 1ntclligenfrr.
LANCASTER. MAY 4, 1885.
Il Must Be Settled.

1t is very remarkable fact that the six /
Judges of the supreme court who heard the
argument in the Butler-Lawrenc judicial |
contest have divided evenly in their view |
Of the proper Judgment to be rendered |
and eirce such tie has occurred, it seems |
to be singularly unfortunate that case of |
this magnitude and Importance should not |
have been argued before full bench, and
hence avoided the delay and uncertainty
that must attend reargument and await
final decision of the case. We see
it is suggested that, inasmuch as majority
of the higher judicatory has not actually
reversed the lower court, the judgment be.
low stand without reargument as the
opinion of the supreme bench. This is
not fair. The litigants and the state are
entitled to the final judgment of the whole
bench on this question. Judge Green is
the laggard member of the supreme court
without him there is a tie his casting vote
should be had, and much disputed con-
stitutional question of the very gravest i'm
portance needs settlement by final and
positive adjudication.
Thisquestion arises out of one of the many
obscurities and several antiquities in the
new constitution of the state. That instrli-
ment, though well intended and containing
many admirable reforms, is not deftly con-
structcd. Whereas it constitutes every
county with over forty thousand pOpula-
tion separate" judicial district, itallows
other counties with less than the requisite
population to be attached" to such dis
tricts for judicial purposes. The ever-re-
curing question is whether a separate
judicial district shall be allowed to elect
n its Qxsfsss2ge without interference of tLs
sta",Ii i !as11, seems to Be sl!eear, Oh
's 4; 4 =. 4 ss .;s Va ssnty is "sepa
4 I: n 81 sszn is thus coupled will
4 .s whose judge may b
Z sSed from another county ant
by an alien vote. On the other hand
it is entirely reasonable that tn
smaller county, being associated with it
neighbor for judicial purposes, has righ
to participate, in Incorporation of its vote
in selecting Judge to administer the CON
mon court; especially as the constitutio
says "all judges required to be learned i
law, except the judges of the suprem
court shall be elected by the qualified Gle,
tors of tie respectire districts orer ,chic
they are TO preside" This raises the who
question-"what is the district ?" If it
the separate district" that every count
of over 10000 population is entitled to b
the instrument says it "shall elect i
judge or judges.
Obviously the different sections of Il
constitution contradict each other A
though it has been argued that they can
reconciled to the view that the count
constituting the separate district shall alor
elect the Judge, and that they cannot
reconciled with the other view, the const
tuition certainly admits of either constru
tion and sadly needs not only judicial i'll
mination but positive amendment.
In the Fayette county case, involvil
primarily the rights of associate judges, Il
supreme court avoided the other questio
When Judge Rowe and Judge Kimmt
were tie in Franklin county, the vote
Fulton, the attached county, was, wit
out dispute, permitted to settle it in fav
Of Rowe. Now Butler, being made-by
most disreputable judicial apportionment
separate" district, with La,
renee attached" Lawrence turns
and elects both judges and Butler goes
the supreme court for redress. Its poli
clans made the district for themselves, al
were hoist with their own petard they d
serve no sympathy, but larger intere
than theirs demands settlement of TIL
question, and the supreme court should
us have it, even if rehearing and rearg
ment have to be fixed to suit Judge Greer
convenience and to extract from him i
opinion and his vote.