The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-01-17
THE ONLY CAUSE.

THE ONLY CAUSE.
This is the only clause of the con-
stltution dealing with this matter and
as consequence, Mr. Burns contend
ed, John Gibbons not having been chal-
lenged and his vote having been ac-
cepted, 1t cannot be taken out of the
ballot box, the constitution failing to
provide any authority or means of
doing so.
The vote of John Gibbons being valid,
the questions asked were irrelevant
and immaterial, the court having
no jurisdiction over the question sought
to be raised.
Section article s, imposes a penal
ty and not a disqualification. If this
penalty is not imposed by the election
board 1t cannot be imposed at all, be-
cause the constitution does not provide
for any other means of imposing it.
Judge Rice asked Mr.. Burns IL he
thought the relevancy or irrelevancy
of the questions have any effect upon
the contempt of court commitment.
Mr.. Burns replied that If the court
has no jurisdiction it certainly could
not inquire into the validity of Mr..
Gibbons vote.
Continuing, Mr.. Burns said that the
election board is clearly the only tri-
bunal authorized by the constitution
to test a voters qualifications. A chal-
lenge raises an issue. If he makes
affidavit that he is a qualified voter
he is acquitted. There is no other pro-
vision for trying a vote.
In answer to questions by Judges
Smith, Rice and Beaver as to his con-
tention that the courts cannot go be-
hind the finding of the election board
on the matter of the validity of a VOTE
Mr.. Burns stated that while it might
appear somewhat startling it was new
ertheless the letter and spirit of the
constitution that once a vote is in the
ballot box it must remain there.
BEYOND IT'S REACH.
1t is open for the court, however,
to punish the voter for committing per-
jury but the vote is beyond it's reach.
The affidavit is final as to the vote.
The voter may be afterwards pun
ished
The appellants second assignment of
error was that the alleged contempt
did not occur in open court and there
fore could not be punished by impris-
onment. In support of this contention
Mr.. Burns instanced that the election
contest examiners were sitting at the
time in the arbitration room. They
have also sat in Carbondale and might
| hold a session in Wilkes-Barre, to eX-
anime for example, into the naturaliz-
alton doCkets.
It could be hardly held that a wit
ness refusing to answer questions in
case like the latter could be rightly
| charged with contempt in open court"
The offense must be committed within
view of the court, he averred.
Judge Beaver asked: WAS not the
defendant brought before the court and
asked these questions which he refused
to answer before the eXaminers?"
mo, no indeed" Mr.. Burns replied.
THAT is Just our point in the case.
Had the judge brought Mr.. Gibbons
before him and asked him the ques-
tions, after telling him of the penalty
| a refusal to answer would merit and
the defendant still refused to answer,
it could not be held that the alleged
contempt was committed in open
| court"
After Mr.. Palmer had announced the
| ground that he proposed to cover in
his argument, namely, the constitution
| tll plitlSt VI lllt NcSC' NIL IlOl6dlC anu
| Mr.. Hamilton were heard in opposi-
tion to the appeal.
| JURISDICTION ATTACKED.
Mr.. Holgate first attacked the iur-
| isdctiOn of the superior court in the
| habeas corpus end of the case, alleg-
| ing that the writ had been improvid-
| IDENTIFY granted and without authority
| of law.
A positive negation of this assumed
| common law power, Mr.. Holgate went
| on to say, was found in the act Great
| ing the superior court, which says sit
| shall have no original jurisdiction"
You have not quoted the whole
| clause, Mr.. Holgate," interrupted
| Judge Rice.
The whole clause reads "it shall have
no original jurisdiction except in ha-
| beas cor2us."
"I am coming to that in a minute"
was Mr.. Holgate's rejoinder.
He argued in this regard that while
| the superior court has original juris-
| diction in habeas corpus, it was re-
| served to the supreme court to deal
| with habeas corpus cases in which the
right to a public office was concerned,
| and this case he contended, came
under that head.
| As to the contempt not having been
| committed in open court, as the ap-
| pellant alleged, Mr.. Holgate said that
| while the offense was not committed
| before the very face of the court, it
| was within the view of the court,
| as the law implies, for the questions
We're all read by the judge and made
| part of the order directing him to APP
| pear before the examiners and make
| answer. Court directed him to make
! answer 10 these particular questions
| and he refused and in that he was
| guilty of contempt,
JUDGE HAS THE RIGHT.
AS to the witness refusing to answer
| on the ground that he would incrim
| mate himself, Mr. Holgate argued that
the judge sitting in the case has the
| right to decide whether or not the wit
ness has a right to slide himself be-
| hind this clause of the bill of rights,
| and in substantiation of this Mr.. Hol-
| gate quoted the case of the common
| wealth against Bell, in which it was
| decided that the question of whether
or not the answer would tend to in
| criminate the witness was a matter for
| the discretion of the trial judge.
Mr.. Hamilton made a lengthy argu-
ment against Mr.. Burns proposition
| that the election board is the court of
last resort in the matter of the valid
| ity of a vote. A man, he said, can not
be finally disenfranchised by an elec-
| ton board. Consequently an election