Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-03-29
a magistrate in sending the case to trial
FURTHER PROOFS.

was there ever such an amazing example of
reasoning in circle? The very act which
proves willful intent to register illegally,
followed up by the fact that he did vote I'M
der the later registration, is cited to prove
residence If this is not the first time in
the world that residence was claimed to be
established by registration we are woefully
at fault. The law and common sense are
and even by township Justice of the
Peace of no broader range of ability than
q. q. Davis ought to be, held that residence
Is the basis of registration.
But this petty Court declares with nom
chalance that awakens admiration, that
the presumption of residence in Sacra-
mento is in favor of Fitzgerald, because,
forsooth, he is registered here. But Regis
trar Tolle, of San Francisco, declares
that he is entitled, on the face
of the Register in San Francisco,
to vote there now, and that the reg
lister there is now uncancelled. Yet the
sapient Sacramento Justice coolly tells
the San Francisco Registrar paragraph
81 that there is no Great Register
IN San Francisco, Notwithstanding that
the Registrar declares that if an cleo
ton We're ordered in San Francisco to-
morrow Fitzgerald could vote in that city
on his registration thee.
Deputy Registrar Rhoads tells the JUS
tice Testimony, paragraph y that if Fitz-
gerald had not St10r1l that he was unregis-
tered elsewhere, he would not have regis
tered him here
Section 1104 of the Political Code pro-
hlbits anyone registering in one county if
his registration in another remains uncan-
celled, and Section 1897 provides that if
uncaucelled, the only way one can change
his registration is by producing certificate
OF the registration in the earlier county
having been cancelled-popularly these are
called transfers"
THE STUPIDITY OF THE THING.
But of all stupid things to which this
township Court has given birth IN this
decision, which sets free an offender against
the most sacred right of American citizens,
is that in paragraph four, to the effect that
the registry laws of San Francisco are in
dependent, and that Fitzgerald cannot
vote either here or in San Francisco with
out REPRESENTATION.
Let us see: The last general State cleo
ton was in the fall of 1885, FITZGERALD
registered in San Francisco in September,
1856. There will be no general State cleo
ton until the fall of 1888. Section 16 of
the act governing registration in San Fran
cisco reads (the italics are ours) 1.-The
in the precinct registers in the
city and county of San Francisco shall take
place previous to each general State cleo
ton asherein provided, and an elector prop
erty enrolled therein, tUithoW being again
enrolled, may Uotc at the general election en-
suing has registration, and at all special cleo
tons 6etlCeen said general election and henext
general election, but not afterwards until re-
registered according to law"
So, then, Fitzgerald can vote upon his
registration in San Francisco at all cleo
tons between the general election of 1856
and the next State general election, which
does not occur until the fall of 1888. This
fact Registrar Tolle, of San Francisco,
also swore to before Justice Davis.
Section 10 of the Act relating to San
Francisco, provides that the provisions
keeping registers, and of entering names
thereon, alterations, changes, cancella-
tions, and as to proof to enable voters to be
registered, and in all other matter, apply
to San Francisco SO far or not in conflict
with the special Act.
MORE OF 1T.
While it will amaze the people of San
Francisco to learn that the law is settled by
a Township Justice of Sacramento, that the
people of the metropolis have no register
whatever, but that the registers, practically,
die with the close of the polls or each gen
erai election day, and are of no effect until
re-made previous to the next general cleo
ton, the people of Sacramento will simply
laugh at the stupidity of a decision
that tells them paragraph 81 that
We have no Register here because, for
sooth, the making of new one has been
entered upon. Suppose the Supervisors
did order new Register, they did not can
eel the old one. Even had they attempted
to do so, the declaration would have
amounted to nothing, because unauthor-
lied by any law. Everyone in the land
knows tina 1.-THE Code does not provide that
when re registration is ordered, the old regis
tration shall become void. 1t cannot lose
vitality until the time for publication
of notice of registration has expired, to
wit, six months. (See Sec. 1904, Political
Code.)
But if, for absurdity's sake, it be admit
ted that the decision is sound, then Fitz-
gerald was guilty of illegal or double regis
tration in January, 1888, since re-registra-
ton was not ordered until February 10th.
1t would puzzle, we think, even township
Justice Davis to answer what, if his idea
be correct, would be done should a special
election be ordered before re-registration is
THE FISHING POND.
In paragraph nine this new legal light.
who so easily disposes of the registry q1es-
ton, declares that his Court shall not be
made "a fishing pond" That is to saw.
he does not hold Fitzgerald, even though
it be admitted that the examination did
develop that another crime than that CHARGED
had been committed, and this is, because,
of the holding by this township
Court, that Fitzgerald is not even guilty of
double registration, as well as being inno-
cent of illegal voting. None of the people
probably, want to use the Court as fishing
pond" Should any so attempt, it is GER
tain that the result would be very small
catch.
We have given the absurd ruling alto
gether too extendedinotice, but cannot dis
miss it without pointing out the cap sheaf
of absurdities in paragraph g. 1.-The con-
lecture that Fitzgerald registered in San
Francisco might be " the same party who
is on register in Sacramento, "does not
raise any presumption against him. But
II does raise the =" conjecture" let US say,
IN CONCLUSION,
That the people believe there is suf-
ticient in the matter to warrant
a Jury in examining into it;
that the public belief is that
Fitzgeralds discharge is a miscarriage of
justice that the facts do raise the presump-
ton of crime on his part, and that be
would have been held had the law in JUS
tice Davis Court have found clear headed
and well-informed exponent it may be the
Courts misfortune, and not its fault that
this is so; it is certain that it is the misfor-
tune of the people. Older and more ex-
perienced magistrates do conceive their
duty to be to hold defendant under exam
ination before him for any felony that
develops in the course of the examination.
In this case there was in our opinion and
that of the mass of the people, the fact of
double registration, before the Court, and it
was sufficient to have justified Fitzgerald's
being held, not only for illegal voting, but
for the other crime as well, the facts suffi-
GENTLY indicating an intent, to Justify send
ing the case to jury to solve the question of
fraudulent intention. Beyond showing the
facts no prosecution can affirmatively u
show the intent-that must be determined
from the proofs adduced.
Justice Davis decision is a misfortune
for the people. 1t is in strong contrast to
the clear and vigorous rulings of Judge
Buckley and Justice Post, in their hearing
of cases of outrages against the ballot box
The Courts are the last resort of the people
for protection from ballot thieves. When
they fail as means of reaching the GRIM
inals, the people are indeed enslaved. be-
.trfrnad IF fha oh 30