The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-03-31
ARGUMENT In THE
GIBBONS CASE
WILL BE MADE BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT APRIL 10.

WILL BE MADE BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT APRIL 10.
Assignments of Error with Refer
ence to the Decision of the Superior
Court-If the Constitution Per-
mits Vote to Be Cast That Per-
nit Of Itself, Makes the Vote
Legal and no Power Subordinate
to the Constitution Can Question
Its Right in the Ballot Box.
The appeal to the supreme court
from the judgment Of the superior
hurt in the contempt proceedings
inst John Gibbons will be argued on
IL 10. Mr.. Gibbons will be repre-
u by Attorneys f. II. Burns, IL.
liner and Ezra II. Cornell. The
\pok On the part of Mr.. Gibbons
Apreparcd and contains the fol-
signments of error:
he Superior court erred in sus-
me judgment Of the court below.
THE Superior court erred in not
E the judgment of the court be-
in not ordering the discharge Of
ndant.
THE Superior court erred IN
that the alleged contempt was
tied in open court.
me arguments it is set forth that
Judgment and conmttal were
hut authority of law for the fol-
hg reasons:
e defendant was fully qualified to
by the constitution, and forfeiture
that right by misconduct is penal
n only by a prevention of the act
voting The vote being east the
lnalty could not be enforced and the
burt was without jurisdiction. Court
WAS also without authority of law in
bthe matter of the alleged contempt for
The reason that the alleged misde-
meanOr was not committed in open
court
Furthermore the defendant could not
bo compelled to give evidence against
himself he being exempt under the
Bill Of Rights Of the constitution. Anent
the question of lack Of constitutional
qualifications and forfeiture of an
existing right there is material dis
tinctiOn between the two The penalty
does not enforce itself and no citizen
can he deprived of his vote or his lib
"rty by implication or construction
suppose. fer sake Of argument, defCn-
dant did brhc some one at the general
election of lS9" did he thereby become
disqualified UC simply incur a penalty
which might or might not be eXactcd ?
MAY HOLD OFFICE.
For instance, a candidate who is
elected. though guilty of some misdc-
meanor as bribery may hold office and
his official acts be good until he is dis
qualified by process of law. Also, a
person who has held an office under the
ederal, stare or municipal govern
mcat, being disqualified by law, yet
may sit upon an election board and
his acts as election officer holds good.
Section :. nf Article Il provides that
in counties of more than $50, 900 inhab-
tants all county officers shall be paid by
salaries but in I.ackawanra county,
the officers still draw fees and no at
tentiOn has been paid to it according
to law.
Section 80, Article 8, which provides
that ~ Inember who has a personal
Ur private interest in any measure or
bill proposed or pending before the
general assembly shall disclose the
fact to the house of which he is mem
bor and shall not vote thereon" is
cited as being analogous to the case
of the defendant
Continuing, the argument asks if any
bill or measure passed by the vote
of a member of the assembly inter-
ested therein, could that bill or meas
ure be declared invalid if the illegal act
of the member voting. Thus with the
voter who had not been previously
challenged at the time of voting upon
the basis that he had bribed some one
The penalty in this case would be for
one year and must be eXacted in the
method pointed out or not at all. The
penalty must be cXaCted before the
vote is cast and the challenge is the
first step.
However whether a challenge is
made or not the statute of limitations
runs with the day Cf election, the dag
in court has passed and there can he
no further adjudication, because the
law makes no provisions for It.
Ply a test of comparison, If the pro-