The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-09-20

TEE KIGmr OF sU1v&Adx
Political circles in California are consid-
ersbly excited concerning : decision Of the
Supreme court on conflict between the
cons titution ann the codes q tnAt state -
to the hight Of sunfaee. The conststutlon
holds that an elector II one who "has been
: resident of the state one year next pre-
ceding m election, and Of the county In
which be claims his vote ninety days, and
Of the election precinct thirty days" The
statuts provides that "A psrson must not
b hsld BY reason Of having moved from
one precinct 70 another In the ssms county.
within thirty day. prior 70 The election, 70
have Lost his residence In the precinct 20
moved from, provided he was IN elsotor
thsrsin on the thlrtisth day prior to such
electson."
In the general election Of 1883 Russell
and Mcdowell were opposing candidates
for Sheriff Of San Diego county, and on the
face Of The returns Mcdowell was declared
slsctsd. But the election was contested BY
Russell, and the record shows that in three
csrtain precincts o. The city q Gan Diego
LA votes were cast, while on the day Of
the election and within the thirty days
prior thsrsto thsre wsre but six hundred
voters resident in the precinct. and the
election officers had not kept book show
ing the Sssidence Of the persons who had
voted. Without the majority he received
in thee precincts Mcdowell was defeated.
The presumption Il that the excess Of
votes over 600 represents electors who had
changed their residence to another precinct
within the thirty days prior to the cleo
Hon. for the Superior Court Of San Diego
county held that the status governed, and
decided against the contestant, who ap-
.poalod ths coee = the Supreme Court.
That court N N opinion written By Chief
Justice Beatty, held that the constitutional
requirement - to precinct rssidencs was
equally obligatory With that concerning
county or STATE residence; that the statu-
tory provision was therefore unconstitu-
tional reversed the decision, and sent the
case back with an order to throw ont the
three disputed precincts.
Al to the enthusiastically Of the
statutory provision. this may b . sound
decision, though many able lawyers quss-
ton It, but it ID certainly calculated to work
great b ardship and injustice in many con-
csivable casss. Il h liable 70 bear with
especial sevsrity on workingmsn. II would
be extraordinary II within any gwen period
Of thirty days, more or less Of this class IN
any community would not b compelled to
shift their place Of work, and Of their resi-
dence. in order TO be convenient to their
work. and certainly in such cases, II they
are bona fds citizens Of the United States,
and have resided in the state one year and
in the county ninety days, they should b
allowed to vote in one precinct or another.
Or in case Of Ere. Hood or other calamity,
citizens may be compelled to change their
residence within the thirty days before An
election. That constitution framed for .
free people. aiming ut justice and . fair
rule Of suffrage, and adopted BY vote Of
the people should provide for or contem-
plate such results seems like very strained
construction. It might, through no fault
of the elector. but from causes wholly be-
yond his control, disfranchise for the time
being . pioneer citisen or one born within
the county IN which he would b disfran-
chisod.
Bat II the decision II correctly reported,
the last clause. which orders the ''throwing
out" Of the precincts. Is open to another
strong objection. Fit was discoverabls, to
the satisfactlon Of court, to an extent to
justify . disregard to attested election re-
turns, that only 600 voters were residents
Of the precincts on election day. it must
have been competent to discover who
they were. It might and doubtless would
have entailed some trouble and expense, but
at whatever CO Of trouble and expense it
would have bean preferable and incumbent
rather than TO disfranchise those 600 lega
voters, either by Supreme Court decision
or otherwise.
There can b no excuse for throwing
out" 600 votes of qualified electors who
constitutionally and lawfully exercised
their right, because 544 others at the same
time and place exercised the right in pur-
suance OF law which subsequently was
pronounced unconstitutional If so, it is
In the power Of any board of election off,
GERS, by admitting illegal votes and failing
10 keep list, to disfranchise great masses
of voters. There is no point on which the
Republican party is moro firmly united
than on this, of having legal votes freely
cast and fairly counted. which is not &C
complained by throwing them out" be-
cause Illegal votes were cast and counted
ct the same time and place. The rights of
voters should not be thus flippantly treated,
even by . Supreme Court
THE STARVING IRISH.