PENNSYLVANIA. 



685 



James P. Sterrett, Judge of the Supreme Court. 

 The Legislature was divided as follows : 



The result of the election for members of 

 Congress was as follows: First District - 

 Bingham, Repub., 13,751 ; McCandless, Dem., 

 6,324; Stevenson, Gr., 4,223. 



Second District O'Neill, Repub., 14,063; 

 Gibson, Dem., 9,177; Keyser, Gr., 402. 



Third District Sheddon, Gr. and Repub., 

 7,970 ; Kandall, Dem., 10,717. 



Fourth District Kelley, Repub. and Gr., 

 17,786 ; Banes, Dem., 11,697. 



Fifth District Harmer, Repub., 16,784; 

 Dallam, Dem., 11,742; Stephens, Gr., 1,539. 



Sixth District Ward, Repub., 13,041; Ous- 

 ter, Dem., 8,285 ; Hibbard, Gr., 709. 



Seventh District Godshalk, Repub., 15,092 ; 

 James, Dem., 13,754 ; Acker, Gr., 569. 



Eighth District Maltzberger, Repub., 6,428; 

 Clymer, Dem., 12,419 ; Yoder, Gr., 2,330. 



Ninth District Smith, Repub., 15,486 ; Wil 

 son, Dern., 8,605; Clair, Gr., 273. 



Tenth District Whitaker, Repub., 4,429; 

 Bachman, Dem., 16,678; Longaker, Gr., 7,329. 



Eleventh District Albright, Repub., 8,116; 

 Klotz, Dem., 8,211; Brockway, Independent 

 Dem., 4,379; Orvts, Gr., 5,193. 



Twelfth District Roberts, Repub., 9,124; 

 Wright, Gr. and Dem., 11,817. 



Thirteenth District Fisher, Repub., 5,698 ; 

 Kyon, Dem., 7,320; Brumm, Gr., 7,128. 



Fourteenth District Killinger, Repub., 13,- 

 659; Withington, Dem., 12,033; Earley, Gr., 

 3,962. 



Fifteenth District Overt on, Repub., 13,145 ; 

 Dimmick, Dem., 3,783 ; De Witt, National, 

 9,321. 



Sixteenth District Mitchell, Repub., 11, 133 ; 

 Smith, Dem., 5,849 ; Davis, Gr., 10,063. 



Seventeenth District Campbell, Repub., 

 12,168; Coffroth, Dem., 12,472; Adams, Gr., 

 2,275. 



Eighteenth District Fisher, Repub., 14,878; 

 Stenger, Dem., 14,671 ; Dougherty, Gr., 754. 



Nineteenth District Cochran, Repub., 12,- 

 322 ; Beltzhoover, Dem., 17,819 ; Slayton, Gr., 

 821. 



Twentieth District Yocum, Gr. and Re- 

 pub., 13,454; Curtin, Dem., 13,381. 



Twenty-first District Bailey, Repub., 9,349 ; 

 Wise, Dem., 12,880; McFarland, Gr., 3,819. 



Twenty-second District Errett, Repub., 9,- 

 099; Duff, Dem., 7,260; Kirk, Gr., 7,447. 



Twenty-third District Bayne, Repub., 9,- 

 104; McKenna, Dem., 6,621; Watson, Gr., 

 2,781. 



Twenty-fourth District Shallenberger, Re- 

 pub., 11,261; Clendennin, Dem., 10,025; Em- 

 erson, Gr., 1,901. 



Twenty-fifth District White, Repub., 10,- 

 744; Guffey, Dem., 9,031 ; Mosgrove, Gr., 8,874. 



Twenty-sixth District Dick, Repub., 14,- 

 010 ; Bard, Dem., 6,558 ; Plummer, Gr., 12,713. 



Twenty-seventh District Osmer, Repub., 

 11,205 ; Allen, Dem., 8,551 ; Camp, Gr., 5,127. 



In the case of Meister vs. Moore, in error from 

 theCircuit Courtof theDistrict of Pennsylvania, 

 the Supreme Court at Washington held that the 

 statutes of any State providing for the pres- 

 ence of a minister or magistrate at the solemni- 

 zation of marriage do not render a marriage at 

 common law invalid for non- conformity. Such 

 statutes regulate the mode of entering into the 

 marriage contract, it is said, but they do not 

 confer the right, and hence they are not within 

 the principle that where a statute creates a 

 right and provides a remedy for its enforce- 

 ment, the remedy is exclusive. A statute may 

 take away a common-law right, but the pre- 

 sumption is against the intention to do so, un- 

 less it is clearly expressed. Whatever direc- 

 tions statutes may give respecting its formation 

 or solemnization, the courts have usually held 

 a marriage good at common law to be good 

 notwithstanding such statutes, unless they con- 

 tain express words of nullity. In this case the 

 marriage was with an Indian girl by declara- 

 tion and cohabitation. Reversed. Mr. Justice 

 Strong delivered the opinion. 



The case of Henry Whelan against the city 

 of Pittsburg, which involved the liability of 

 the city to pay $6,000,000 of bonds issued for 

 the improvement of Penn Avenue, was decided 

 against the city. The grounds urged by the 

 city to sustain her exemption from liability 

 were : First, that the bonds issued under the 

 Penn Avenue act and its supplements did not 

 constitute part of the funded debt of the city 

 of Pittsburg ; that the holders of said bonds 

 were bound to look for the interest thereon 

 due and to become due to the assessments 

 made under the provisions of said act upon 

 the properties abutting on the streets or ave- 

 nues improved, and that no authority or power 

 had been given or delegated to the Councils 

 of the city to levy a general tax or any tax 

 to pay the interest on said bonds out of the 

 general revenues of the city. Second, that the 

 bonds in question were issued in disregard of 

 the Constitution, which limits the debt of the 

 city, and on the requisition of commissioners, 

 without any previous appropriation made for 

 their payment by Councils, as required by the 

 Constitution. The Court decided that neither 

 of these grounds of defense could be sustained, 

 and conclude by saying: "We are all of opin- 

 ion that the bonds in controversy are the bonds 

 of the city of Pittsburg, and a part of its 

 funded debt ; that they were issued by lawful 

 authority, and for a sufficient consideration ; 

 and that honor, good faith, and the law of the 

 land alike require that the city should provide 

 for their payment." 



Another case involving a question of great 

 interest to municipalities was decided by the 



