PENNSYLVANIA. 



621 



to be printed for the use of the receiver of 

 taxes, one of which they shall deliver to the 

 inspectors of election of the division." The 

 only evidence required that a person has a res- 

 idence in the election division ten days next 

 preceding the election, shall be the fact that 

 his name is found on this list, " and the recep- 

 tion of the vote of any person not so proved 

 shall constitute a misdemeanor in the election 

 officers as receiving it, and on conviction there- 

 of the election officer so offending shall be 

 subject to a fine not exceeding $500, and im- 

 prisonment not exceeding one year, at the dis- 

 cretion of the court." 



There was much dissatisfaction felt with this 

 law, on account of the trouble and time which 

 were required of every voter before his vote 

 would be received. It was also claimed that 

 it was unconstitutional, as requiring qualifica- 

 tions of voters not demanded by the Constitu- 

 tion. The provision of that instrument on the 

 subject is expressed in these words: 



" In elections by the citizens, every white freeman 

 of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in 

 this State one year, and, in the election district where 

 he offers to vote, ten days immediately preceding such 

 election ; and within two years paid a State or county 

 tax, which shall have "been assessed at least ten days 

 before the election, shall enjoy the rights of an elec- 

 tor ; but a citizen of the United States who had pre- 

 viously been a qualified voter of this State and re- 

 moved therefrom and returned, and who shall have 

 resided in the election district and pays taxes as 

 aforesaid, shall be entitled to vote after residing in 

 the State six months. Provided, That white free- 

 men, citizens of the United States, between the ages 

 of twenty-one and twenty-two years, in the elec- 

 tion district ten days as aforesaid, shall be entitled 

 to vote though they shall not have paid taxes." 



Very soon after the passage of the law, steps 

 were taken to test its validity. Bills in equity 

 were filed in the Supreme Court in Phila- 

 delphia, by certain " residents, taxpayers, and 

 qualified voters," of that city, to restrain the 

 aldermen from appointing boards of commis- 

 sioners and causing the registration of voters to 

 be made in accordance with the provisions of the 

 new law. The question was considered by the 

 full bench of five judges in the early part of 

 July, and a majority gave an opinion adverse 

 to the law, pronouncing the same unconstitu- 

 tional and void. Chief Justice Thompson pro- 

 nounced the opinion of the court," and entered 

 at considerable length into the merits of the 

 case. The following passage from his opinion 

 will serve to show the general objections to 

 the law : 



The accumulation of affidavits, not oaths merely 

 the attendance on the board of canvassers it may be, 

 day after day, for the act contemplates that there 

 may be required three days to revise the list, in hear- 

 ing applicants for registration the necessary appli- 

 cations by the voter to be assessed, which, if made at 

 all, cannot be earlier than in the night time of the last 

 of the ten days after the lists shall have been made 

 out the subjection to the assessment of a tax to com- 

 plete the process, whether the voter may have pre- 

 viously thereto been assessed, or even paid his taxes 

 or not, and the knowledge that, after all this, voters 

 will at the polls be subject to be challenged, and all 



that has been required and proved may heretofore be 

 proved again for the fact of registration is conclu- 

 sive of nothing ; it is only its absence which is evi- 

 dence, and that against the citizen are such a succes- 

 sion of embarrassments, if nothing more, as to be 

 equivalent in many cases to a denial of the right of 

 the elector altogether an overthrow of the guaranty 

 of the constitution, that " elections shall be free/' 

 I fully subscribe to what was said by the court in the 

 case of Com. w. Maxwell, 3, Casey, 444 ; " a law in- 

 tended to take away or unnecessarily postpone or 

 embarrass the right of election would be set aside as 

 unwarrantable." This principle is affected by any 

 unnecessary embarrassments of the rights of the 

 elector. Nor is the evil distinguishable between the 

 consequences of an act intended to embarrass, and 

 one that does embarrass unnecessarily without in- 

 tending it. In my judgment, this view, if there was 

 nothing else to complain of, ought to set aside this 

 act. 



It was said also that the requirement of ten 

 days' residence before registration increased 

 the period required by the Constitution before 

 the day of voting, and that naturalized citizens 

 whose papers were received less than ten days 

 before the election would be deprived of the 

 privilege of voting to which they were enti- 

 tled. 



This law having been pronounced void by 

 the highest tribunal in the State, no registra- 

 tion of voters was made for the fall elections. 

 The State election took place on the second 

 Tuesday of October, and resulted in the choice 

 of the Kepublican candidates for the State 

 offices. The whole vote cast for auditor-gen- 

 eral was 653,155, of which Hartranft received 

 331,416, and Boyle 321,739, giving the former 

 a majority of 9,077. 



For several weeks prior to the election, the 

 rapidity with which the naturalization of for- 

 eigners was carried on in the city of Philadel- 

 phia, led to numerous suspicions of fraud, or 

 negligent examination of applicants in the 

 tribunals charged with issuing naturalization 

 papers. In the Supreme Court, where Judge 

 Sharswood presided, nearly 3,000 persons were 

 naturalized in a single week, and it was said 

 that blank papers, signed by the prothonotary, 

 were issued in large numbers. This matter 

 was brought up for the adjudication of the 

 Court, on a rule that the prothonotary show 

 cause why an attachment should not issue 

 against him for contempt, and Judge Shars- 

 wood declared, that there was no evidence of 

 fraud or negligence on the part of that official. 

 Certain certificates found on the person of a 

 drunken man were pronounced forgeries, and 

 the judge intimated his belief that they were 

 placed there for the purpose of giving an op- 

 portunity to make charges of fraud and cor- 

 ruption against the tribunals and officials having 

 authority to issue certificates of naturalization. 

 On the day before the election, the question of 

 the legality of the naturalization papers issued 

 for several weeks previously, was brought be- 

 fore Judge Read, who decided that they were 

 illegal, and that any person attempting to vote 

 on the strength of such papers would be liable 

 to arrest, a fine of $1,000, and imprisonment 



