The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-10-18
Supreme Court Decision In the Judicial
Voting Middle.
ONLY TWO DISSENTING VOICES
Chief Justice Stcrrett and Associate
Justice Williams Disscnted-In His
Opinion Justice Dean Decides That
Six Names Only May BE Voted.

| new court act WAS HdHueu uoWh "!
Justice Dean. Chief Justice Sterrett
and Associate Justice Williams dis
sented, however.
In his opinion, Justice Dean. decided
that but six of the candidates can be
voted for by an elector.
Among other things Justice Dean says
the courts are without authority to re-
wise the work of the state Legislature
so long as that work Is in strict har-
mony with the constitution. He reclted
section l, of article s, of the constltu-
ton. which provides: THE judicial
power of this commonwealth shall be
vested in supreme court. In courts OF
| common pleas. courts of oyer and term
iner and general Jail delivery, courts
of quarter sessions of the peace, or
phans' courts, magistrates courts. and
In such other courts as the general as
| sembly may, from time to time, es-
tablish." Under the authority of this
| last specification. "such other courts
as the general assembly may from time
to time establish" the Superior court
was created. Nothing Is said in the ar
ticle as to how judges of such courts
when established shall be elected. Sec
tion 10, of the same article. clearly ap-
plies to the election Of district judges
of the common pleas for they are to be
elected by the qualified electors of the
respective districts over which they are
to preside, while the jurisdiction of the
Superior court judges is limited by no
district boundaries.
Names of Elcctins Judges.
The manner of electing Supreme court
judges Is also prescribed in the consti-
ton; but being silent in the judiciary
article as to the method of electing the
members Of the Superior court. we turn
to Section l. Article XII. which de-
clareS:
"All officers whose selection is not
provided for in this constitution shall
be elected or appointed as may be dl-
rected by law" And so, in pursuance
OF the authority to create other courts,
in Section 1, Article V, the court is es-
tablished and by the authority of Sec
ton l. Article XII, the method of elec-
tion is prescribed.
The case most relied upon by the ap-
pellee, State against Constantine, AZ
Ohio, 437, in which the court arrives at
| conclusion different from ours, 1t is
said: "The right of each elector to
vote for a candidate for each office to be
at an election have never been doubt
| ed" In our state the right of the legls-
latuTe TO limit the vote to less num-
Der than all the officers to be elected,
has never been doubted: as the histori-
cal Interpretation has been wholly diff
ferent the conclusion must necessarily
be at variance. Hays VS.. Common
! wealth. S2 Pennsylvania SIS, turned on
another question than Is raised here:
Whether by application of the cumul-
tatve voting plan a stockholders cleo
tion In a railroad corporation chartered
under act of 1868 could be controlled.
This court held that even the constitu-
tion could not give the right under the
charter to have one vote cast for each
| officer to be elected.
But it Is argued from the provision
of the constitution establishing limited
voting as to certain offices the maxim
"Expressio unius eXclusio est alterius"
must move the court to the construc-
tion contended for by appellee The
application of this maxim depends
wholly on the subject Of contention;
the expression of one thing often neces-
sarily is, or tends to the exclusion of
others not expressed. but the induction
is not warranted in all cases. and II in
discriminatory applied would frequent
ly lead to most erroneous conclusion.
Established nv COnst tuition.
In the case before us the constitu-
tion establishes limited voting in the
election of Supreme court judges. coun-
| ty commissioners. Philadelphia magls-
trates and inspectors of election. there
fore It is argued the implication is that
the plan Is excluded in the election Of
all other officers. But the limited vOt-
ing plan was recognized and adopted
In the constitution because 1t was
deemed wise that as to offices. nom
partisan in character, or which at least
should be. the minority party ought to
have representation. and this could
only he attained by limiting voting.
| ho ~ fbto thing
sarily exclude other things not ex-
pressed? As the same reasons for the
plan exists as to like offices thereafter
4 created, Is not a necessary deduction
that plan like that expressed
should be followed? Does not the whole
spirit OF the constitution plainly so i'm
ply, while there Is not word indicat-
ing that such plan as to other or new
courts is forbidden? In the cases specl-
fled the constitution Is mandatory; It
says to the legislature In thus enumer-
ating them, thou shalt prescribe the
limited voting plan; in the cases not
enumerated 1t is discretionary.
For the reason herein stated, as well
as for those assigned in the opinion Of
Judge Mcpherson, the decree OF the
court below Is reversed and the petit
ton of the attorney general for a
mandamus Is. dismissed at the cost Of
appellee.
The Dissenting Opinion.
Briefly stated. the dissenting opinion
Of Justice Williams, which Is con-
Cured In by Chief Justice Stemet, Is
that the legislature Is powerless to deny
any qualified voter the privilege of vot-
ing at all elections, for all elective OFF,
GERS, II said voter desires to exercise
that power.
Referring to Justice Deans claim
that II the Dauphin county courts
Judgment were affirmed the jury COM
missioners act would fall. Justice Will
Jams says no serious Inconvenience
would result. He adds:
that this should happen than that the
sacred right Of suffrage so carefully
intrenched by the people in their funda-
mental law should become the foot ball
Of party majorities. to be limited or re-
strlcted as the exigencies of political
warfare might seem to require. I would
affirm this judgment and uphold the
! constitutional declaration"
The court subject to the controversy
| was created by the last legislature.
It Is composed OF seven judges, six Re-
| publicans and one Democrat, who were
| appointed by the governor to serve un-
til their successors were elected at the
4 general elections In November Each
1 party recently nominated six candl-
dates for the new bench with view of
giving the minority party representa-
tion. The arrangement Of the ticket
providing for the election of the judges.
named after the passage of the act, by
the governor, provoked the legal dis
pute.