Middletown transcript., 1894-03-24
LEVY COURT,
We copy from the Morning News of
Wednesday last its strong editorial OH the
actions of the present Levy Court:

We copy from the Morning Neics {
Wednesday last its strong editorial OH til
actions of the present Levy Court:
PECULIAR LEVY COURT WORK.
Levy Courtman Armstrong made a goo
point yesterday afternoon in his argumer
against the practice of the practice of til
majority of the members of the Levy Coul
in rejecting the testimony of men who ar
pear before the court to make oath as
the identity of voter. and to vouch fo
him as a bona fide citizen and resident of
hundred of the county or a ward of thi
city. Mr.. Armstrong; argument was mad
against the rejection of the testimony o
two vouchers-one white man and one
colored man-in favor of two colored mel
who were applying for assessment.
In both cases the doubt expressed as I,
the truth of the affirmation of the voucher
was upon question of the age of the ap
plicant for assessment. In both cases Mr.
Scott, chairman of the Levy Court, refused
to accept the evidence of the voucher
backed by the testimony of the applcan
upon the ground that the vouchers know
ledge of the age of the applicant wa
based upon hearsay information and wa.
| therefore imperfect and untrustworthy. Ii
one of these cases the man whose applica
| ton was rejected returned to the court with
another witness. who was willing to testify
under oath as to the age of the applicant
This mans testimony was rejected because
he was not a free holder of the county"
The seriousness of the situation, as indi.
Gated by Mr. Armstrong, lies in the fact
that the rejection of the testimony of O
respectable freeholder of the county
makes it possible for the Levy Court to
disfranchise men who have perfect right
to be assessed and to be thus qualified for
voting. This is apparently what occurred
yesterday. Two colored men, with all the
arguments in their favor so far as appear
ances go, were practically disfran-
chised. These two colored men were
above the average in apparent intelli-
gence and respectability. Each one claimed
to be twenty two years of age. Had they
been under twenty two years of age they
could have claimed the right to vote on
and could demand to be sworn as to their
own ages and their right to vote. Having
passed this age they they came to the court
as the law required, backing their own
testimony as to age and other qualifications
for assessment. These freeholders were
we're citizens whose affirmations had
been accepted in other cases by the
same court, and whose regulations as
respectable freeholders' would thus
seem 10 he established 10 the satisfac-
ton of the court All these things were
laid aside as of weight, and the men
refused assessment, as it appears, because
the men who appeared to vouch for them
had not been present at the time and place
of their birth.
This is what this kind of ruleing amounts
to, and this is the seriousness of the matter.
Carried to its legitimate end, no man could
satisfactorily prove his age, except by his
father, mother or the physician attending
at the time of his birth. Even with these
witnesses swearing positively as to the age
of their own son, if they were not free
holders, or were not respectable" in the
opinion of the court; or not being backed
by a voucher whom the court considered
"a respectable freeholder," a citizen could
not establish his right to be assessed to the
satisfaction of this Levy Court.
Another serious character of this kind of
ruling is that it involves, SO far as the Levy
Court is concerned, the "respectability" of
the voucher. In the cases in question,
under Mr.. Scott's leadership, the Levy
Court was made to declare that these two
vouchers are not respectable freeholders;"
and, further, Mr.. Scotts ruling made the
Levy Court deny what it had previously
affirmed. He made the court refuse to
accept the sworn testimony of men whose
testimony it had accepted previously and in
similar cases, There can be but one opin-
ion about this kind of procedure, and that
is that the character of the testimony has
little to do with the political decisions of
the Levy Court. In these cases-and donbt
less in many other cases of refusal to assess
Mr.. Scott decided that the ages of the
applicants had not been proven. He dis
franchised two colored men, and presuma.
bly, two Republican voters.
Under Mr.. Armstrong; demand for his
authority for the rejection of the testimony
of the vouchers in these cases Mr.. Scott
appealed to the following provisions oflaw:
"It shall be lawful for the Levy Court to
PROFOUND to the atfiant such questions as
they may deem proper concerning his
knowledge of the applicant, and if he
should refuse to answer they may reject
said oath or affirmation; and further, that
the Levy Court shall be the judges of the
respectability of the affiant and may re-
ject the affidavit or affirmation of any per-
son upon that ground.
There are are two reasons given here
rejected-a refusal to answer, or upon the
decision of the court that the voucher is
not "a respectable freeholder" Upon which
of these was the adverse judgement given
yesterday? The men answered all the ques-
tions frankly, and their respectability had
been established by the courts acceptance
of their oaths and affirmations in pre-
vious and similer cases.
Here is the danger; the court has rejected
the Law in the case. It has found
other grounds for rejecting the testimony
of vouchers, and thus, under its ruling
man may be reputable to day and dislepu-
table tomorrow.
The Greensboro Road.
Friends of the proposed Greensboro and
fredericksburg Railroad met at the court
house again on Tuesday to learn what
report the Pennsylvania Railroad Company
had to make to the the last proposition
from residents. of the county. This was,
that in in addition to the subscription of
$4,000, the guaranteed right of way, the
people further agreed to furnish enough
ties to construct the road. In the absence
of Joseph H. Bernard, chairman of COM
mittee, ex-senator Dawson. for Mr.. Ber-
nard read the letter of vice President Thom-