Lackawanna Legal News. VOL. V. SCRANTON, PA., FRIDAY, FEB. 3, 1809 In re Contested Election of M. J. Kelly. No. 1. Quarter sessions of Lackawanna County, No. 296, December Sessions, 1897. Witness-Refusal to testify-Contempt-Article 8, Section 8 of constitution. At a hearing before examiners taking testimony in a contested election, a witness cannot refuse to answer such relevant questions as may be put to him touching the unlawful receipt or use of money by him at the election in contest. The inqury cannot be confined to the particular office in controversy. The status of the voter at the time he cast his ballot determines its legality and this extends to the whole of it; it cannot be held good in part and bad in part; it is good or bad altogether. Neither party can lay claim to the vote of a corrupted voter, merely because the corrupt influence was not extended in his behalf but of some other candidate. The object sought for to be obtained by the framers of the constitution in Art. 8, Sect. 8, was not merely to forbid bribery at an election, but to render it unsuccessful by nullifying its effect. Motion for order on John Gibbons, a witness produced by the contestants, to answer certain questions. R. H. HOLGATE, J. J. H. HAMILTON, for motion. IRA H. BURNS, contra. ARCHBALD, P. J., Nov. 25th, 1898.-The subject involved in this motion is virtually the same as that previously considered and passed upon by the President Judge, and in accordance with the opinion then expressed, the witness was bound to answer such relevant questions as might be put to him touching the unlawful receipt or use of money by him at the election in contest. The point was made then as now: that the inquiry should be confined to the particular office in controversy, but it was expressly declared that it could not be so limited. Notwithstanding this ruling, when the witness was brought before the examiners a second time, he still persisted in his position, and was supported in it by the advice of his counsel. Without stopping to discuss the propriety or the right of the witness or his counsel to speculate with the circumstance that the order upon him to answer had been made by but one member of the court from whien, perchance, upon a further hearing, the other members might differ, it is sufficient to observe that all the judges are of one mind as to the duty of the witness to answer the questions which have been propounded to hing. The constitution absolutely disqualifies any voter who receives money or other valuable thing for his vote, and the person who seeks to obtain it by such means is equally under its ban. It matters not whether this unlawful influence is exerted in behalf of any candidate or set of candidates; the voter, in the face of it, votes illegally, and his corrupt vote cannot be allowed to nullify the honest vote of his uncorrupt neighbor in any pàrticular. The status of the voter at the time he casts his ballot determines its legality, and this extends to the whole of it; it cannot be held good in part and bad in part; it is good or bad altogether. This is true with regard to a voter who is disqualified on the ground of corrupt influence as it unquestionably is with regard to one who has failed to pay a qualifying tax, or has not resided in the district where he votes a proper period, or, if an alien, has not become duly naturalized. The proofs in a contested election are directed to the inquiry whether the candidate returned has in fact received the votes of the majority of the qualified electors. This is a question between him and his contesting opponent, and it is this that gives the contest its public character. Neither party, therefore, can lay claim to the vote of a corrupted voter merely because the corrupt influence was not exerted in behalf of himself but of some other candidate. The community is not concerned with this particular phase of the question, nor is the inquiry prosecuted to discover and punish the misdoings of the candidate or his over-zealous friends: its object is to sift out the good from the bad and determine which candidate has received an honest plurality. It is suggested. however, that the disqualification imposed by this section of the constitution only goes so far as to require the voter, if challenged on the ground of bribery, to purge |