The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-12-12

The statute under which Judge Il. W.
Archibald issued the order directing the
bringing in of the ballot boxes and
the taking thercfrom of all the ballots
is an act of congress finally approved
on February ~. 1851, referring to con-
gressional election contests. Section ITO
Of this act reads as follows:
When any contestant or returned mcn-
bcr is dcsirous of obtaining testimony re-
specting Il contested election. he may APP
ply for Il subpoena to either of the fol-
lowing officers who may reside within
the congressional district in which the
election to be contested was held.
The act then goes on to euumerate
the various officers who have power to
issue such subpoenas and the first men,
toned is "any judge Of any court OF the
United States" Section 123 of the same
act reads:
The officer shall have power to re-
quire the production of papers and on the
refusal or neglect OF any person to pro-
duce and deliver up any paper or papers,
in his possession pertaining to the cleo
ton or to produce and deliver certified or
sworn copies of the same i'll case they
are official papers such persons shall he
liable to all penalties imposed by this act.
Judge Archibald construes papers" to
include ballots, which it is held are
official papers, bearing a very intimate
connection with the election.
Opinion in Rearick Case.
Regarding the alleged claim that
Judge Archibald was seeking to usurp
the functions Of the state courts it is
interesting to note an opinion filed by
him yesterday in a habeas corpus case
brought to his attention recently. The
case was that of H. l.. Rearick, of Sum
bury, who was arrested for an alleged
violat ton of license tax ordinance
passed by the borough council. He was
released on bail but was afterwards
surrendered by his bondsmen. a writ
Of habeas corpus was applied for and
granted by Judge Archibald who has de-
cided against Rearick in the following
opinion
The power of the United States courts
to intervene by habeas corpus in a case
where a disregard of the federal law is
charged, must be conceded, but to do so
is not at all times eXpedent. TO a GER
tain extent ii involves a conflict OF au
thority, which it is desirable, if possible,
to avoid. For although the supremacy of
the federal court in federal matters must
be recognized, Vet where the state court
has assumed jurisdiction, the discharge
on habeas corpus of one who has been
arrested on its process or is bound by
recogniZance to observe its commands, is
a direct interference with it's proceedings
which nothing but the most urgent neces-
sity justilies. Should the state court,
either resenting the interference or claim
ing that the case did not come within
the federal law, determine to go on with
it Notwithstanding the discharge. a direct
clash between the state and federal au-
would result with which it is
not we'll to be drawn. The state courts.
both original and appellate, are bound
by the constitution and the laws of the
United States, the same as the courts of
the general government, and are entirely
to interpret and apply them
1t is not to be assumed that they will not
do so, and if they do not, or II they see
in the application, the party aggrieved
has a complete remedy by a writ OF err
ror to the United States Supreme court |
where justice will certainly be done.
An Appeal Was Allowed.
In the present instance, If tho relator
had rested upon his conviction before the |
justice, or upon application to the quar-
ter sessions of the county for the allow
ance of an appeal had been refused a
case for the intervention of this court |
sented But instead of that, an appeal |
was allowed, and is now pending in the |
northumberland sessions, where it would |
have come up in due course at the present |
term. There is no reason to suppose |
that ii will be correctly disposed of when |
it does. BY entertaining the appeal the |
court has shown its readiness to do JUS |
tce to the rclatOr, and having the power |
to pass upon disputed questions of fact in |
IL way that this court on habeas corpus |
would not have, there is every reason |
for awaiting the result. II the rolator |
should have any cause of complaint with |
it when it comes, the higher appellate |
courts of the state are open to him. and |
last of all, as already suggested, the |
tribunal, which in federal matters is SUI |
premc. The present writ may be q short |
cut to relief but according To the views |
expressed in Baker vs.. GriCc, 1G9 L. s. |
81, and Minnesota VS.. Brundagc $50 L. S. |
i99, it is not one to be encouraged. EX- |
crclSing, therefore, the discretion which |
is vested in me i'm the premises, | deem |
1t best that the proceedings pending III |
the state court should be allowed to take |
their course.
Let the rclator lie romunded, ana the |
writ discharged without prejudice
Commissioners Stokes and Toohey
secured possession of eight ballot boxes |
rom Dickson City, Blakely and II part |
If Archibald yesterday and brought |
hem to Clerk Searlcs office in the gov
srnment building,
County Commissioner Durkin still has |
of the keys for the ballot |
boxes and appears to have no inten-
ion of giving them up.