Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

(Division of election district.)

under the true construction of the act of 1848, then they are the proper officers to hold the presidential election; for, by the 14th section of the general election law, it is declared, "that the general, special, city, incorporated district and township elections, and all elections for electors of president and vice-president of the United States, shall be held and conducted by the inspectors and judges elected as aforesaid, and by clerks appointed as is hereinafter provided."* Of the authority of the legislature to name the officers of newly-created election districts, we entertain no doubt; precedent and public convenience both justify it. In naming such officers, the legislature gave them all the powers and faculties necessary to carry the duties assigned to them into effect. There is no more familiar officer in our civil code, than the judge or inspector of elections; in assigning an individual to execute such an office, he is, ipso facto, clothed with the powers necessary to execute the duties imposed on him.

It is the opinion of the court, that, in this instance, it was the legislative intention to give their nominees the same powers as if they had been the duly-chosen and undisputed inspectors and judge of the Penn district, elected in March last. That the legislative intention was, to completely organize these districts, there being no assignable reason why they should have intended to limit the

* It has been ruled by the court of common pleas of Philadelphia, that the offices of inspector and judge are annual ones, and therefore, that those elected at the general election are to hold the presidential election in the same year. 16th October 1852. Re-affirmed by Allison, J., 1st August 1864. It has also been decided by the same court, that one appointed to fill a vacancy in the office of inspector, in place of the one elected by the people, but who failed to appear and act on the day of election, was entitled to hold the office for the whole year. March 1852. The contrary doctrine, however, was held by the predecessors of the present court, in the case of the Penn District Election, where it was held, that such party was only an officer pro hâc vice, and that the regularly-elected inspector could appear and claim his seat, at a succeeding election. 11th May 1850. See People v. Cook, 8 N. Y. 67, 88 (ante 441). The same court has determined, that the clerk of elections, when appointed, is an annual officer, and cannot be removed by the inspector, except for some disqualifying March 1852.

cause.

(Division of election district.)

authority of the election officers named by them, to one election in the year, leaving all others exposed to the conflicts that had theretofore disturbed and nullified former elections. That although there is some ambiguity in the law, yet, taken as a whole, it sufficiently manifests the legislative intention to have been, to create a complete and not a partial organization of the districts; that in describing their nominees as "the officers elected on the 17th of March last," they indicated the true character intended to be imparted to them, and defined their powers to be plenary. That an officer elected in March to hold the general election in October, has, in virtue of his office, the right to hold all intermediate and subsequent elections held during the year; and that treating and describing these nominees as such officers, shows by plain and natural inference, the intention to have been, to give them all the functions properly pertaining to such officers. That the real and manifest object of this enactment was, to validate one of the polls held in this district in March last; and that the legislature have done so in the most effectual way, by declaring the individuals voted thereat to be "elected;" that this word, used in the section, casts a direct light on the intention of the legislature, and shows it to have been, to give to the officers, that precedent justified them in creating and necessity required them to create, the full and complete legal powers necessary to perform the duties charged upon them. And finally, that this being a question of statutory construction, according to the settled and immemorial usage of courts of law, it is the duty of this and every other court, to seek in this and every other statute, for the true meaning of the lawgiver; to execute it, when it is ascertained, as that intention existed when the law was passed, and not, from any change of events, to seek to evade a solemn duty, or defeat the action of a law which they veritably believe to be the true one intended by its framers.

In one of those continual applications which are made

(Division of election district.)

by election officers and citizens, to the judges of this court, for advice, I, certainly, in April last, expressed an opinion, that the functions of the election officers of Penn district, named in the act of 1848, did not come into existence until the October election, and that they were incompetent to hold a special election for district commissioners, taking place after the district was divided into precincts. This opinion was expressed, in an interview with the disputing parties, at my own dwelling, when I made an anxious effort to promote a compromise among the citizens of the district, which, if it had been effected, would have restored peace and harmony among them. My then opinion was given without argument, and without the assistance of a conference with my brethren, who now all think that the advice that was given on the occasion should have been, that the officers created by the act of the 10th of April, and their nominees in the eastern precinct, were the proper officers to hold the district election. To the opinion of my brethren, thus given, after argument and anxious examination, I am, of course, bound to defer.

That I or any other judge should occasionally err in responding to the questions put to us, under the various local election laws and arrangements of this great and populous judicial district, is certainly not strange; our answers are given in court and out of court, formally and informally, on the spur of the moment, and being questions public in their nature, affecting whole communities, we always, when applied to for advice, feel bound to respond, according to our impressions at the time. But whether the functions of the legislative nominees came into existence in October last, as I seem to have thought in April last, or whether, according to the opinion of my brethren, they came into effect immediately on the passage of the act, is of little weight on the question now before us, which is, not simply when these powers began, but what was the extent thereof, when they went into effect. These powers were, in the opinion of the court, co

(Division of election district.)

extensive with those of any other election officers of the commonwealth.

The question before us, it will be remembered, is a simple one of the true meaning of an act of assembly, and nothing more; every other matter agitated on the argument is foreign to the subject; our duty and authority has this extent and no more; and we have exercised it, after fully and carefully considering the subject in every point of view in which it has been presented, or in which we have been able to regard it. Being of opinion, that these nominated officers possess all the legal characteristics of other inspectors and judges of election, of course, they have the same legal disabilities; and if they, or any of them, have taken upon themselves functions incompatible with the office of judge or inspector, the remaining officers must fill the vacancy according to law.

In Pennsylvania, by the act of 20th April 1854, the courts of quarter sessions have power to divide boroughs, wards and townships into election districts, to alter the bounds of election districts, and to form new districts out of parts of adjoining townships. Where commissioners report, under this act, in favor of dividing an election district, the question of division must be submitted to a vote of the electors, the result of which is conclusive, and takes away all power of the court over the report. Kugler's Appeal, 55 Penn. St. R. 123. Wherever a new division is formed entirely out of an old one, the officers elected are required by the act of 28th April 1857, to appoint election officers for the new division. Gibbons v. Sheppard, 2 Brewst. 2, 56. This act, of course, has provided for the difficulty that occurred in the principal case, but the point there decided is an important one, and of more than mere local interest. In New York, it has been determined, that the legislature cannot, constitutionally, change the boundaries of a city or town, so as to alter an assembly district. Kinne . City of Syracuse, 3 Keyes 110.

527

STEVENSON v. LAWRENCE.

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia.

JUNE TERM 1862.

(Reported 1 Brewster 131.)

[Decision at the next term.]

A statutory provision requiring the court to hear and determine a case of contested election “at the next term,” is merely directory; the jurisdiction does not fall with the expiration of the term.

Motion to dismiss the complaint, on the ground that the time prescribed by the statute for hearing and disposing of the same had elapsed.

Cassidy and Hirst, for the motion.

Conarroe and F. C. Brewster, contrà.

When

ALLISON, J., delivered the opinion of the court. this case was last before the court, it was upon a motion to dismiss the petition of the contestants, and that the court do not proceed further with the cause. Upon this motion, the court, as then constituted, divided in opinion, my brother Ludlow being in favor of the motion, and my brother Thompson against it, the former holding that the jurisdiction of the court over the case was at an end, expressing at the same time his willingness to hear the evidence, reserving the question of jurisdiction; Judge Thompson holding, on the other hand, that the case was not out of court, but before them for further investigation and final determination. Upon this state of facts, the court being unable to proceed, on the invitation of my brethren, I have come into this case, upon the question as stated to me, "what entry should be made upon the

« ÎnapoiContinuă »