562 



PENNSYLVANIA. 



on his affidavit that it has been lost or de- 

 stroyed, or that he never received any ; but, if 

 the person so claiming the right to vote shall 

 take and subscribe an affidavit that he is a 

 native-born citizen of the United States (or, if 

 born elsewhere, shall state the fact in his affi- 

 davit, and shall produce evidence that he has 

 been naturalized, or that he is entitled to citizen- 

 ship by reason of his father's naturalization), 

 and shall further state in his affidavit that he is, 

 at the time of taking the affidavit, between the 

 ages of twenty-one and twenty-two years, that 

 he has resided in the State one year, and in the 

 election district ten days next preceding such 

 election, he shall be entitled to vote, although 

 he shall not have paid taxes ; the said affidavits 

 of all persons making such claims, and the 

 affidavits of the witnesses to their residence, 

 shall be preserved by the election board, and 

 at the close of the election they shall be en- 

 closed with the list of voters, tally-list, and 

 other papers required by law to be filed by the 

 return judge with the prothonotary, and shall 

 remain on file therewith in the prothonotary's 

 office, subject to examination, as other election 

 papers are ; if the election officers shall find 

 that the applicant or applicants possess all the 

 legal qualifications of voters, he or they shall 

 be permitted to vote, and the name or names 

 shall be added to the list of taxables by the 

 election officers, the word * tax ' being added 

 where the claimaint claims to vote on tax, and 

 the word ' age ' where he claims to vote on 

 age; the same words being added by the 

 clerks in each case respectively on the lists of 

 persons voting at such election." 



The right to vote of any person whose name 

 is upon the list may be challenged by any 

 " qualified citizen of the district," and the 

 same proof will then be required as in the case 

 of a person whose name is not upon the list at 

 all. 



After some further provisions regarding the 

 powers and duties of assessors, inspectors, and 

 judges of election, the act contains the fol- 

 lowing : 



SEC. 11. On the petition of five or more citizens of 

 the county, stating under oath that they verily believe 

 that frauds will be practised at the election about to be 

 held in any district, it shall be the duty of the Court 

 of Common Pleas of said county, if in session, or, if 

 not, a judge thereof in vacation, to appoint two ju- 

 dicious, sober, and intelligent citizens of the county 

 to act as overseers at said election; said overseers 

 shall be selected from different political parties, 

 where the inspectors belong to different parties, and, 

 where both of said inspectors belong to the same 

 political party, both of the overseers shall be taken 

 from the opposite political party : said overseers shall 

 have the right to be present with the officers of the 

 election, during the whole time the same is held, the 

 votes counted and the returns made out and signed 

 by the election officers ; to keep a list of voters, if 

 they see proper ; to challenge any person offering to 

 vote, and interrogate him and his witness under oath, 

 in regard to his right of suffrage at said election, and 

 to^examine his papers produced; and the officers of 

 said election are required to afford to said overseers 

 so selected and appointed every convenience and 

 facility for the discharge of their duties ; and if said 



election officers shall refuse to permit said overseers 

 to be present and perform their duties as aforesaid, 

 or if they shall be driven away from the polls by- 

 violence and intimidation, all the votes polled at such 

 election district may be rejected by any tribunal 

 trying a contest under said ^election: Provided, That 

 no person signing the petition shall be appointed an 

 overseer. 



Some special provisions are made respect- 

 ing registration in the city of Philadelphia, 

 which require greater care in the preparation 

 of lists, and forbid the assessors to take down 

 the names of boarders at hotels, taverns, res- 

 taurants, and sailors' boarding-houses in that 

 city, for the proof of residence must be by the 

 testimony of two citizens who are household- 

 ers and electors. 



The constitutionality of this act was soon 

 brought in question, chiefly on account of the 

 difference between the regulations required in 

 the city of Philadelphia and those prescribed 

 for other parts of the State. . The provision of 

 the constitution supposed to be violated was 

 that which says " elections shall be free and 

 equal." An action was brought in the Supreme 

 Court by several citizens of Philadelphia, who 

 asked that tribunal to declare the act of April 

 1 7th unconstitutional, and enjoin the authorities 

 of the city from carrying it into effect. The 

 case was first tried at nisi prius in the month of 

 June, before Judge Sharswood, and a decision 

 rendered in accordance with the demand of 

 the petitioners. The judge took the ground 

 that the law made the elections unequal because 

 it prescribed one mode of registration for the 

 city of Philadelphia, and another for the rest 

 of the State, and that it infringed their free- 

 dom, by imposing conditions upon the right 

 of suffrage, which, if not complied with by the 

 citizen, would prevent him from voting at all. 

 The question was tried before the full bench 

 of five judges, early in July, and the former 

 decision reversed, Judges Agnew, Williams, 

 and Eead, maintaining the constitutionality of 

 the law, and Sharswood and Thompson dissent- 

 ing. The opinion of the majority was read by 

 Judge Agnew. He argued at considerable 

 length that difference of regulation, according 

 to the circumstances and requirements of dif- 

 ferent localities, did not make the elections 

 unequal, and contended that there was nothing 

 in the law subversive of the rights of the people, 

 as the conditions imposed were only such as 

 were necessary to secure the great ends of free-r 

 dom and equality of elections. His conclusions 

 are summed up in the following paragraphs : 



But it is unnecessary to discuss this subject at 

 greater length. Enough has been said to show that 

 free and equal elections are the true end to be se- 

 cured, and that the system of laws regulating the 

 elections is only the means of securing the end : that 

 this system of regulation is the subject of legislation 

 over which the Legislature exercises a sound discre- 

 tion ; that no clause in the constitution requires uni- 

 formity of regulation, or prohibits legislation accord- 

 ing to the obstacles which different localities present 

 to prevent a free and equal election ; and that it is a 

 mistake to substitute uniformity of regulation for the 

 free and equal election which it is the object of the 



