Republican news item. [volume] (Laport, Pa.) 1896-19??, 1900-05-31

also when offered a second time, and
Tor the same reason.
1.-The plaintiff had generally Coop
Grated with and supported the Republic
can party and had been considered and
treated as a Republican, having been
elected by that party inspector OF cleo
tions, assistant assessor, and from 1887
to the present time township auditor,
but in 1898 had opposed the election OF
Governor Stone and actively supported
the fusion legislative ticket, composed
Of equal numbers of Democrats and Re-
publicans, in opposition to the regular
Republican nominees.
"As Judge of the election, the de-
fendant. when plaintiffs vote was chal-
lenged, had a sworn and judicial duty
to perform. viz: to determine whether
under the rules Of the Republican party
he had or had not right to vote. and
this he did, and as far as the evidence
discloses conscientiously and without
malice or any animus whatever.
POINTS OF FACT.
1.-THE following points were present.
ed by the defendant: :.
"'The court is respectfully requested
to find
81. That under the rules OF the
Republican party of Chester county,
plaintiff was not entitled to vote at tho
Republican primary election held June
8, 1899, after being challenged until
he had made (1) a declaration to sup
port the party; (2) an affidivit that ne
voted the Republican ticket at the last
general election.
"'2. That in refusing plaintin's
vote defendant performed judicial
act, in which he would not be answer
able for a mistake of judgment or
mistake of conclusion.
"'3. The plaintiff had failed to show
that the action of the defendant in re-
fusing plaintiffs vote was willful or
malicious or that such a refusal was
unlawful or illegal.
"'4. That plaintiff had failed to
prove clear and Intentional derelic-
tion of duty by defendant.
"'5. That defendant in refusing
plaintiffs vote was acting within the
limits OF his jurisdiction as judge OF
election Of the Republican primary
meeting, and incurred no legal liability
for a mistake of Judgment.
"'6. That plaintiffs action can not
be sustained and judgment must be
entered for defendant.
"7. That judgment of non-suit
must be entered against plaintiff
1--WE do not deem it's necessary to
pass upon these points seriatim, as all
that are material to the issue will be
found answered in either our find
ings of fact or conclusions of law.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
"The important legal question pre-
sented Is, Can this action, under the
evidence, be sustained?
Under the provisions of the act OF
June 80, 1881, to regulate the holding,
ETC., of primary elections, the defend
ant was required to take and subscribe
to an oath or affirmation that he would
impartially and faithfully perform his
duties in accordance with the
rules and regulations adopted by the
Republican party of Chester county,
for the government Of primary elec-
tions, meetings or caucuses,' and the
same act subjects him to q heavy fine
If he shall willfully disregard or vio-
late the provisions Of any rule duly
made by the Republican party of Ches-
ter county for the government OF the
primary elections Of the party or II
he shall knowingly reject the vote OF
any person entitled to vote under the
rules of said party or IL he shall
knowingly receive the vote of any per-
son or persons not qualified as afore-
said
when, therefore, the plaintiffs vote
was challenged it became the duty of the
defendant, under his oath or affirma-
tion, as judge, to determine whether
it should be received or rejected, and
this in accordance with the rules of the
Republican party of Chester county.
"He was consequently compelled tC
construe those rules, which he did (and
it is not questioned) by holding that
plaintiff was not entitled to vote unless
he would make affidavit that he voted
the Republican ticket at the last gen.
eral election
"That affidavit the plaintiff declined
to make and his vote was rejected"
After citing a number of precedents
in both this country and in England
to sustain his position, Judge Hemp
hill directed that judgment be entered
by the prothonotary in favor of the
defendant.
INSURGENTS DEMORALIZED.
This decision has spread consterna
ton in the ranks of the insurgents.
Men who take an interest in polite:
usually like to be identified with one O
the great political organizations. The!
believe in certain fixed principles ant
they wish to be regarded as supporter
of the party representing such prin
ciples.
Even some of the most ardent advo
Gates Of fusion at this time, when pu
to q test, admit that they would not b.
| identified with the Democratic part!
under any circumstances. They are
however, in opposing regular Republi
can candidates for the legislature Civ
| ing the most valuable assistance pos
sible to the Democratic machine in thi
| state. 1t is hardly possible that Penn
| sylvania can become one Of the doubt
| full states in the approaching presi
Dental campaign. but If there shall b.
question of the Republicans contin
uing in control of congress, Pennsyl
| vania and her delegation in the ma
tional senate and house may be al
| important factor in deciding whethe
4