The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1886-05-21
Primary Election Law.
JUDGE PAxsoN GIVES ITS FIRST OFFICIAL.
INTERPRETATION BY THE sU-
PREME COURT

The Supreme Court on, Monday
handed down decision in the case of
the Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney
General vs.. John Leonard, commits
sioner of Schuylkill County. The
opinion is by Judge Paxson and af-
lords the first important judicial inter-
preation by the Supreme Court of the
Primary Election law of 1881. The
proceeding was writ of quo warranto
by the Commonwealth to lest the right
of Leonard to hold his office as CON-
missioner of Schuylkill county. 1t was
conceded that the defendant was the
Republican candidate for that office in
1884 and was duly elected by large
majority at the election of that year,
that he was duly returned as elected
and had entered upon his office. The
Commonwealth alleged that defendant
had been guilty of bribery, fraud and
violation of the election laws. This
the latter denied and the case was duly
tried before the jury, who found fol
the Commonwealth, and, the Court
thereupon passed a judgement Of
custer against Leonard.
"The Supreme Court holds, affirm
ing the decision of the lower court,
that the primary election law is an
election law within the intent of Sec.
ton of Article VIII of the Consti-
tuition, which holds that ANY person
who shall, while a candidate for Office,
be guilty of bribery, fraud or villful
violation of any election law, shall be
forever disqualified from Office, etc. =
Judge Paxson says: "The Constitu-
ton provides for the future as well as
for the present. Hence, when it speaks
of violation of any election laws as
were in force when it was adopted, it
means any election law then in exis-
tence or thereafter to be passed by the
Legislature which that body had a
right to pass. The
argument has failed to satisfy us that
the act in question is Objectionable up
on constitutional grounds"
"The proposition that the Legisla-
ture may not prohibit and punish
frauds at primary elections and NOM
mating conventions is certainly a
novel ore. The argument that it is
not valid because not expressly autho-
rized by the Constitution is unsound.
The converse Of the proposition is
true--that is to say, the Legislature
may pass such laws unless prohibited
from so doing by the Constitution.
''If we were considering the Federal
Constitution there would be some force
in this argument, for the National
Government is one of limited powers,
and what is not found in the Consti.
tuition does not exist. The act in
question is perfect law so far as its
validity depends upon form. 1t
is complete within itself. 1t defines
and Furnishes offenses of the gravest
character, the existence of which ha:
been known to every intelligent person
in the State for many years, and which
more than anything else has under
minded and weakened our whole sys
lem of government. To say that tn,
Legislature may not lay its hand on g
public evil of such vast proportion.
is to say that our Government is toe
weak to preserve its own lite. There
is not line in the Constitution which
in express terms, or by any reasonable
implication forbids this Legislation.
In reference to the claim advanced
that Leonard was not candidate, the
Court holds that the word candidate
in the Constitution is to be understood
in its ordinary popular meaning, ant
that man is candidate for an Office
when he is seeking such Office, either
before nominating convention or al
the direct hands of the people.