The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-03-31


vision in Section s. Article s, were
contained i'm statute il would un-
doubtedly conflict with Section /. of the
same article and yet the constitution
was certainly intended to be in har-
mony with itself In the first section
the qualifications Of the voters are
provided for and provides that none
others are required. Section pro-
vides the additional qualification that
the voter must not be bribed or
brbcr. Therein the apparent con-
nict lies. but constituting section as
penalty. there is no conflict.
THE policy uf the law" the argu-
ment goes on to say, land the consti-
tuition is to sift the bad votes from the
good before election rather than after
wards. 1t was with this view that the
constitution of 1874 provided thata for-
eign horn citizen must have been ra-
, turalizcd at least one month before
election. These provisions We're supple
mented by the registry law framed for
the especial purpose of preventing
Illegal votes getting into the ballot box
| Can 1t be that i'm the face of all these
wise precautions the makers of the
constitution deliberately framed and
engrafted a section the effect Of which
would be. if our opponents claims are
correct to let a lot of doubtful votes
into the ballot box to allow them to
he returned, counted and certified with
the express understanding that they are
only presumptivcly good, and that they
may be thrown out on a contest? If so,
then this section is freak.
But it may be urged are not votes
thrown out even after they have been
cast, returned and counted. We say.
certainly, but it is where the constitu-
tional and statutory directions have
not been complied with. not where they
have.
IF the constitution permits a vote tO
be cast under certain conditions and
these conditions have been complied
I with, the constitutional permit, of it,
self, makes the vote legal and no power
subordinate to the constitution can
! question it.
CAUSE MANY DIFFICULTIES.
ITO allow votes of this kind to he
thrown out would be to open the door
to innumerable difficulties in the trial
and decision of a contested election,
The ordinary questions of fact arising
| in contested election are either mat
ters of record or such open notoriety
as TO be only proven beyond dispute.
Naturalization and taxes are matters of
record. The question Of residence is
necessarily known to the public and
easily settled. But the question of bri-
berry is directly the contrary. 1t is not
matter of record and is not done in
the public view.
The evidence in regard to it is likely
10 be conflicting. Is the court to he
| governed by the rules of evidence i'm
civil orcriminal cases? Must the offense
De proven beyond a reasonable doubt
or by the weight of the evidence. Has
lhe accused party the right to he heard
by himself his counsel and witnesses
OF may his guilt or innocence be de-
'eTmlnedW wholly eX parte? Can the trial
JuuSe alone determine whether the
"Hense was committed or must there
be a jury?
lhese are only a few of the diff
CUT questions likely to arise if the
views or the court below are sustained
II seems to us that the design OF the
. constitution makers in this section was
J 20 prevent this very multitude of wills
herelh suggested, and they did it by
providing that objections against tha
vote should be heard before the vote
is cast.
In these remarks we are not UNI
aware of the decision in re contested
elections Of Harry White, Fourth Dis
trlct, Rep. 1863, but i'm that case the
points here raised seem not to have
peen fully considered, and the decision
itself is good example of the necrs-
slty of supreme court for the cor
rcction Of errors"