The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1895-10-23
ONLY SIX TO BE VOTED FOR.
The Supreme Court Sustains the New Su-
perior Court Measure.

The supreme court of Pennsylvania sit
ting in Pittsburg, Thursday, reversed the
recent decision Of Judge Simonton, of
Dauphin county, and declared the act
creating the superior court of the state to
be constitutional. The opinion sustain
ing the new court act was handed down
10y Justice Dean. Chief Justice Sierrett
and Associate Justice Williams dissent
ed, however.
In his opinion Justice Dean decided
that but six of the candidates can be vot-
cd for by an electOr.
Among other things Justice Dean says
the courts are without authority TO revise
the work Of the state legislature so long
as that work is in strict harmony with the
constitution. He recited section of arti-
Gle }.
Under the authority of this last specifi-
cation, ''such other courts as the general
assembly may from time to time estab-
liSh'' the superior court was created.
Nothing is said in the article as to how
judges of such courts, v hen established,
shall be selected. Section -, of the same
article, clearly applies to the election of
district judges of the common pleas, for
they are to he elected by the qualified
electors of the respective districts over
which they are TO preside, while the iaris-
dic;ion of the superior court judges is
limited hy no district boundaries.
The manner ofelecting supreme court
judges is also prescribed in the constitu-
ton; but being silent in the Judiciary ar
iicles as to the method of electing the
members Of the superior court, we turn
to section l, article II. And 50 in pur-
suauce of the authority to create other
courts, in section /. Of article ). the court
is established. and by the authority of
section I, article l., the method of election
i prescribed.
Justice Dean continues: I'm cur state
the right of the legislature 10 limit the
vote to less number than all the officers
10 he elected, has never been doubted
as the historical Interpretation has been
wholly different. the conclusion must
necessarily be at variance. Hays vs Com
monwealth, s. Pennsylvania. 5lS. turned
on another question than is raised here,
viz: Whether by application ofthe Gu
mulative voting plan stockholders
election in a railroad corporation charter
cd under the act OF 1858 could be eontroll-
ed. This court held that even the cunsti-
tuition could not give the right under the
charter 10 have enc vote cast for each Off
Ger 10 he elected.
But il Is argaed from the provision of
the constitution establishing limited vot-
ing as TO certain Offices the maxim 'ex-
pressio unius exclusio est alterius' must
move the court 10 the construction con-
tended for by the appellee. The appli-
cation OF this maxim depends wholly on
the subject of contention, the expression
of one thing oflen necessarily is, or tends
TO the exclusion OF others not expressed
but the induction is not warranted in all
cases, and if indiscriminateIy applied
would frequently lead to most erroneous /
In the case before us the constitution
establishes limiting voting in the election
of supreme court judges, county commits. /
sioners, Philadelphia magistrates and in
spectors of election, therefore ii is argued !
the implication is that the plan is exclud- /
ell in the election of all other officers. But
the limiting voting plan was recognized
aud adopted in the constitution because