The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-11-26

Bad.
Judge Archibald yesterday handed
down an opinion for the court in banc,
directing John Gibbons to make answer
to the questions which he refused to
answer in the election contest.
The opinion also severely scores Ex-
aminer T. J. Duggan for upholding the
witness in his refusal to answer after
the president Judge had directed that
she should make answer.
Mr.. Gibbons when first called before
the commissioners answered all ques-
tions put to him regarding the treas
urership election, but declined to make
answer to questions pertaining to the
election in general. holding that he had
been summoned to be examined in the
matter of the contest for the office
of treasurer and that questions foreign
to this particular election were not
germaine to matter al issue.
Mr.. Lewis who was the only eXamin-
er present at the time. ruled that Mr.
Gibbons should answer the questions
Hon. NJ. L. Mcdonald, counsel for the
respondent, instructed Mr.. Gibbons
that he need not answer. Acting on this
advice, Mr.. Gibbons declined to follow
the examiners instructions.
The attorneys for the contestant had
the matter certified to Judge Archibald
and he directed that the questions be
answered. Mr.. Gibbons &. cared at a
subsequent hearing before the examin-
ers with his attorney, l. II. Burns, and
again refused to answer on ADVICE of
counsel what he considered improper
and mn rartipopt cnpStiOps
OBJECTIONS SUSTAINED.
At this hearing Examiner Duggan
took an opposite view OF the courts s
directions from that held by Examin-
er Lewis and, while the latter held
that the witness should answer ques-
tions pertaining generally to the cleo
tion, the former upheld Mr.. Gibbons in
his course, and as each of the alleged
impertinent questions were objected to
by Mr.. Gibbons attorney, Examiner
Duggan sustained the objection.
Mr.. Gibbons was cited for contempt
and, after several postponements, the
matter came up for a hearing before
the three juges on Saturday last. The
action of Examiner Duggan, 1t is sup
posed, prompted court to withdraw
the contempt feature of the case and
the matter resolved itself into the orig
inal question as to whether or not Mr..
Gibbons should answer the interroga- :
tions to which he had remained silent.
On this matter Judge Archibald speak
ing for the court, says:
Motion for order on John Gibbons. a
witness, produced by the contestants, Ia
answer certain questions.
nOint in 10 ,a
same that was previously considered and
passed upon by the president judge, and
IN accordance with the opinion then eX-
pressed the witness was bound to an
swer such relevant questions as might be
put to him touching the unlawful receipt
or use of money by him at the election
In contest. The point was made then as
now that the inquiry should be confined
10 the particular office in controversy
but 1t was expressly declared that II could
not be so limited. Notwithstanding this
ruling when the witness was brought be.
| fore the examiners a second time he still
persisted in his position and was sup
ported in it by one of the two examiners
appointed to take the testimony.
NO EXCUSE FOR CONDUCT.
Whatever right the witness might have
under the advice OIL counsel to speculate
with the circumstance that the order
| upon him to answer had been made ty
but one member of the court from which
| perchance upon further hearing the
other members might differ, there is nc
excuse for the conduct of the examiner
who saw fit to support him in IT, So faI
as lie was concerned the opinion of the
court, whether by one member or by all
| had hecn expire: scd and he was bound &c
| respect and enforce IT, regardless of what
| his own irdividual opinion might be upo
the subject. His attempt 10 overrule II
| is an exhibition of contumacy which moi
only merits but calls for this rebuke anc
would warrant something even more
drastic.
| All the judges are however of one mini
as TO the duty of the witness to answer
/ the AZ estions which have been propOund
! ed to him. The constitution absolutely
/ disqualies any voter who receives money
or other valuable thing for his vote. and
| the person who seeks to obtain il by sucr
| means is equally under it's ban. II mat.
| tors not whether this unlawful influence
/ Is eXerted In tehalf of any candidate oI
/ set of candidates; the voter in the face
of it votes illegally and his corrupt vote
cannot be allowed TO nullify the honest
vote of his uncorrupt neighbor in any
| particular.
The status Of the voter at the time n,
casts his ballot determines its legality
ana this extends to the whole of it; IL can
| not be held good in part and bad in part
# is good or bad altogether. This is a,
| true with regard to a voter who is dis
| qualified on the ground of corrupt iunu
ence as II unquestionGbly is with regarf
TO one who has failed TO pay n uuaIIfy
ing tax, or has not resided in the district
| where he votes a proper period, or. II an
| alien, has not become duly naturalized.
ITS PUBLIC CHARACTER.
The proofs in a contested election ar,
| directed TO the inquiry whether the can
didate returned has In fact received tht
| votes of the majority of the qualifie,
electors. This is question between hin
and the community at large as much as il
| Is between him and his contesting oppo
| nent, and il Is this that gives the confess
| its public character. Neither party. there
| fore, can lay claim to the vote of a cor
| rupted voter merely because the corrup
| influence was not eXerted in behalf II
| himself but of some other candidate.
| The community is not concerned witt
| this particular phase of the question. MOI
| is the inquiry prosecuted to discover anC
| punish the misdOirgs of the candidate ol
| his over-zealous friends; its object is I,
! sift out the good from tho bad ana de
| termine which candidate has received an
| honest plurality.
It is suggested, however. that the dis
! Audlii'N'Ni'A 'ihi"sNN ~ 'IlS SttNlon OI
| the constitution only goes so far as to re
quire the voter, If challenged on Tho
| ground of bribery, to purge himself OF
| tho charge by oath or affirmation, before
his vote shall be received. The consti
tuition does indeed provide that this may
be exacted of him in case the chaEengC
be made, but 1t is absurd to argue thar
this is all the force that is to be given q
1t. This provision of the fundamental Law
| IS one which the community as well ppr
| haps as the legal profession seem SLOW
OF comprehendng, and as evidence of II
In no contested election In this county
| I'm 10 the nresent. has the ntternnt hnnr