Opinion

Page v. Allen

  • 58 Pa. 338
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jul 2, 1868
Status
Published
Author
Read
On the bench
Agnew, Read, Sharswood, Strong, Thompson
Cited by
39 cases

The opinion

Read, J.,

dissenting. — A majority of the court think that a registry law, properly framed, is constitutional, and well calculated to prevent frauds at election. I agree with my brother Agnew, that the Registry Act is constitutional, and could be carried into effective operation.

I was counsel of Mr. Kneass in 1851, and of Mr. Mann in 1856, and from what I saw in those contested election cases, I was fully convinced that the election laws were utterly inefficient in preventing fraud, and subsequent experience has confirmed me in my opinion. In some districts of the city — “ plague spots”— fraudulent voting is the rule, and honest voting the exception.

I am fully convinced that nothing but a registry law, honestly and firmly administered, can cure an evil which strikes at the root of our republican institutions.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.