The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-02-20

was one which the court had power to
punish summarily, and whether the
sentence was lawfully imposed. These
questions are to be determined by the
record brought up with the certiorari.
No execution is taken TO the form or
sutficlency of the commitment or the
sheriffs return to the writ of habeas
corpus. Any technical defect therein
would seem to be supplied by the petit
ton for the writ of habeas corpus, and
we will therefore treat the commitment
and the sheriff's return as sufficient in
view of the whole record.
The power to punish contempts of
court Is so well settled, by repeated
adjudication, that it is unnecessary to
rehearse the reasons given in support
of this authority, or to cite the cases
in which 1t is established. The prac-
tical question here is: Does the Of
fense for which the relator was con-
Victed constitute a contempt of court
within the meaning of the law, for
which summary punishment may be
imposed? The argument that the dis
qualification under article S, section s,
of the constitution, is not disqualifi-
cation in the legal sense, but a penalty,
and applies only to the proof required
Of the voter before his ballot can be
accepted by the election board, and
cannot be inc uired into thereafter, is
radically unsound and conflicts with
other sections of equal force relating
to elections. Under the construction
| contended foi. this provision of the
construction, manifestly designed 20
prevent fraud at elections. would be-
come q SHIELD, and a ratification of
| fraud because of its successful perpe-
| tration. Such a construction is not to
| be tolerated.
That the refusal by a witness to
| answer questions material to the issue
| of the case in which he is called, is a
contempt of court. and punishable as
such. is not and cannot he denied, az
| 81 general proposition. Eut it is set mp
| in defense that the questions here pro-
| pounded are exc pied from the general
rule. on the ground that the answers
| would tend to determination: that
| the constitution provides that no per-
| son shall be compelled to give evil
| denCe against himself. and as the re-
| lator has formally claimed the benefit
| Of this clause, he cannot be compelled
| to give evidence against himself, and,
| AS the relator has formally claimed
| the benefit of this clause, he cannot
| he compelled to answer or be punish
| ed for his refusal The answer to this
| objection is found in the constitution
| itself By articles s. section 10, IL is
provided that, In trials Of contested
| elections. and in proceedings for the
| investigation Of elections. no person
| shall be permitted to withhold his tes-
| timony, upon the ground that it may
| criminate himself. or subject him to
| public infamy; but such testimony
| shall not afterwards be used against
| him. in any judicial proceeding, eX-
| cept for perjury / ngiVing such testi-
monY." To this it is replied that this
provision is itself unconstitutional. be-
| cause 1t is in conflict with the bill of
| rights which "is excepted out of the
! general powers of government, and
| shall forever remain inviolate." This
| question involves largely the suEiciency
| of the cause Of conviction and it may
| be doubtful whether we are required
| to rule upon it, Rut if the relatCr is
| being prosecuted for a matter which
| is not an IindiCtable offcnse under the
| law of PENNSYLVANIA, it would be our
| right as We'll as plain duty to eX-
| anime the subject, and to discharge
the relator if this be true: Com V.
! kctrer % Fa, 376,
CONFLICT OF TERMS.
The question calls for the interpre-
! tation of the constitutions on rhis al
| legged conflict of the terms of that iu-
| strument. The constitution Is en-
| titled, like ether Instruments, 10 Il
| construction, as nearly as may be, in
|
| ers:" Moers V. Reading, II Pa. l&S. "A
| constitution is not to receive q techni-
| cal construction, like cOmmon-law in
| strument or a statute. 1t is 20 be in
| terpreted so as to carry out the great
| prinpiples of the government, not to
defeat them" Com V. Clarke, : W. &:
| S. 12T. 1t should he construed in the
! light which the whole instrument
| throws upon it. The elective principle
| is. essentially. a vital force in our
! form of government and in the organic
| law. As the state develops and eX-
| pands, the principle of the elective
| system grows in public import
| ance and methods OF execution.
| The progressive measures adopted
from time to time, by constitution and
statute, for the rerpetuation and pres
| ervatiOn of this principle, illustrate its
| paramount Importance in government
| affairs. We may safely conclude,
| therefore, that the elective principle is
| one of the great principles Of the gov
| ernment" which it is the aim of the
| constitution to preserve, and all laws,
! constitutional and statute, relating to
! elections, should be construed to that
| end. The constitutional provision in
| question must be interpreted in the
| light which the whole instrument
throws upon it, and the purpose and
intent of the people in its adoption.
It's manifest purpose was to protect the
purity Of the ballot box, and to this
end it was deemed necessary to adopt
constitutional measures, regulating the
right of franchise. "A fraud upon the
ballot box is a crime against the ma
tom" SO Pa. 107. 1t is most neces-
sary, therefore, to enforce all existing
measures for the repression of this
Offense.
II is quite clear that those constitu-
; tional measures may be enforced with
} out violating the bill of rights, which
is to be construed in harmony with the
; other parts of the constitution and thus
full effect given to every section of
! that instrument. The essential pur-
pose of the clause of the bill of rights
referred to, was to prevent the COM
, pulsory STANDARDIZATION of those
| charged with crimes against the law.
!. Any subordinate provision of law Vio-
lative of that purpose must be declared
null and void. without conceding that
the tenth section OF article eight of
the constitution is subordinate to the
bill OF rights, II Is certain that this sec
; tiOn may be sustained without conflict
J ing with the purpose and effect of that
clause. BY section of the bill of
rights, I'm criminal prosecutions, the
accused cannot be compelled to give
, evidence against himself" But I'm
cases within article 8, section 10, the
witness who testifles to his own turpi-
/ tude does not give evidence against
himself, since the testimony thus given
$ cannot be used as evidence against
SfrOno odav