Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1886-05-18
PRIMARY FLECTiON Law.
Here Are Same Points for the Republican =,
irai hspirants to Ponder TIT. W,ek

Here Ar" sone Points for tho Republican Polt
irai Asp'ran,s to Ponder THIS Week.
Tho supreme court on Monday handed
down u very important decision Ia the case
OF tic commonwealth eS rel. attorney general
against John Leonard, commissioner of
Schuylkili county. The opinion IL by udge
Paxson and affords tho first important judi
cial Interpretation by the supreme court of
the primary election law of 1881 Tho pro.
ceeding wasa writ of quo warranto by the
commonwealth to test the right Of Leonard
10 hold his office as commissioner OF Schuyl-
Kill county.
II was conceded that the defend was a
Republican candidate Tor the office in 1884
and was duly elected Ivy large majority at
tho election Of that year that he was duly re-
turned a. elected and had entered upon his
office. Tho commonwealth alleged that
defendant had been guilty of bribery, fraud
and q violation Ot tho election laws. This
tho latter denied and the case was tried be-
fore jury, who found for the common.
wealth, and the court passed "A judgment OF
custer against the defendant Leonard took
this writ of error TO the supreme court and
the substantial error alleged to have been
committed 10y the common pleas OF Schuyl-
Kill county was Its failure to instruct the jury
that the primary election law OF 1851 was not
one OF tho election laws OF the common
wealth aud that therefore a violation of its
provisions would not be "A violation of the
election laws
The supreme court holds, affirming tho
decisi III OF the lower court, that the primary
election law Is an election law without the
intent of section nine Of article eight OF tho
constitution, which holds that "any per son
who shall, while a candidate for office, bs
guilty of bribery, fraud or wiltul violation ot
any election law, shall be forever disqualified
from" office, etc. Judge PaNson, says:
"The constitution provides Tor tha future
u. well ~ for the present Hence when IL
speaks at a violation Of any election laws ~
were in force when II was adopted, IL means
any election Law then In existence or there
after Ia to passed by the legislature which
that body hal right To pass The
argument has failed To satisfy us that the sct
in question IL objectionable upon constitu-
tional grounds. The proposition that the
legislature may not prohibit and punish
frauds AT primary elections aud nominating
conventions IL certainly n novel one. The
argument that II is not valid because 1t
- not expressly authorized by the con
stitutiOn II unsound. The converse of tho
proposition il true, that the Legislature may
pass such laws unless prohibited from dong
NJ 10y the constitution. The act in question
ia perfect law a. far a. its validity depends
upon mere form. 1t IL complete within itself
1t defines and Furnishes otienses of tho gravest
character, the existence OF which has been
known lo every intelligent person In the
state tor many years, and which, more than
anything else, has undermined and weak
ened our whole system of government. To
say the legislature may not lay its hand upon
public evil OF such vast proportions il To
say that our government Is too weak to pre-.
serve its own lite. There Is not line In the
constitution which, in express terms or by
any reasonable Implication, forblds this
Legislation"
As to the question raised on the argument
Whether Leonard was n " candidate Tor bis
office prior to his nomination by his party
within tho meaning Of the constitution,
Judge PaNsOn says: The word "candI-
date In the constitution is to be understood
in its ordinary popular meaning ~ the peo-
pie understood II whose votes at the polls
gave that instrument the force and effect of
organic law. Webster defines tho word to
mean 'One who seeks or aspiros to some
uttTCp or privilege, or who OIL ers himself for
the same This II the popul ar meaning OF
the word and is doubt ess the meaning
which the members OF the constitutional con-
vention attached TO 1t, and the sense in
which the people regarded Ii, when they
came To vote. We therefore say in every
day life that u man IL a candidate for an Office
when he II seeking such Office. IL is be K
ging tho question to say that he is only can
uidate alter nomination., for many persons
hrve hoen elected 10 office who were never
nominated at all. We hold, therefore, that
tho defendant was a candidate for Office
within the constitution ~ well "a the act of
lsSl. IL while such candidate he WAS guilty
Oi any wiiul violation OF any election law
he comes diroctly within the constitutional
provision. What is an election law? When
the people inserted in their constitution the
words ANY election law it Is fair to assume
that they meant any law relating to elections.
That primary elections come within the mis-
chief Intended TO be remedied is too plain for
argument II nder our frame of government a
vastsystem of political machinery has grown
up, by which elections have been for many
years practically controlled. 1t Is so lar reach
ing in its effects that the people have In many
instances little to do at the polls beyond the
ratification of what had been already done by
nominating conventions. The influence
which these primary elections have bt on for
good or evil upon the politics OF the country
IL oyershadowing. In many counties of the
state, a. IL well known, a nomination by a
convention OF one of the parties is practically
equivalent to an election. The importance
OF the relation of tho primary To the general
election must be apparent To every one who
does not shut his eyes that he may not see or
stop his ears that he may not hear.
"By the words any election law the
trainers Of the constitution and the people
who adopted 1t evidently meant it to include
any act which the legislature might thereafter
enact tor the purpose OF purifying our cleo
tons The act of lSSl was passed to give
elect to this constitutional provision and 1t
matters little at what stage of the campaign
the fraud il committed. We are of opinion
that the act of June s. 1881, is an election law
within the meaning of section 9, article 8,
ot the constitution. Judgment is affirmed"