away salutary provisions to relieve individual cases. "It is hard cases which make bad law." To give the effect to the statute claimed by the contestant, would be virtually deciding that the law in question is unconstitutional-a length we are not prepared to go. By the Constitution, every male citizen of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of his district for the length of time prescribed, shall be entitled to vote for all officers to be elected. By section two, article two of the Constitution, the Legislature is empowered to pass laws excluding from the right of suffrage all persons who have been or may be convicted of bribery, larceny, or of any infamous crime; and for depriving every person who shall make or become directly interested in any bet or wager depending upon the result of any election, from the right to vote at such election. By section four, the Legislature is empowered to enact laws for ascertaining by proper proof the citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage hereby established. The Legislature have always exercised the right to pass laws for the purpose of preventing illegal and fraudulent voters from voting, and thus influencing the result. Both of these sections are to be construed together, and under the last provision we do not see how it can be successfully maintained that the present law is unconstitutional. Laws have been passed providing that in certain cases the elector should not be permitted to vote unless he should comply with certain regulations and conditions, and take an oath prescribed by the statute. Would it be contended, that because some person with conscientious scruples against taking an oath should be repelled from the polls and prevented from voting, that the law would be void because it should so operate as to deprive such a person of the right to vote? We can discover no difference in principle between the compelling of electors to take oaths in certain cases, on any of the provisions previously passed, and the law in question, as far as the constitutional right to enact the law is concerned. The Legislature have not only the power but it is their duty to pass all necessary laws to preserve and protect the ballot-box. It is no reason that the law is invalid because in some instances electors shall be deprived of their right to vote, by reason of any act or negligence of theirs or on account of the failure on the part of the officer to whom the execution of the same is intrusted to perform his duty. The object of the registry law is to ascertain, by proper proofs, the persons entitled to exercise the right of suffrage, and because the same is stringent in its provisions, so long as only proper proofs are required, the objection made that in some cases persons entitled to vote may be deprived of their right on account of a failure to comply with its provisions, certainly cannot be successfully maintained, and would apply to all previous legislation upon this subject. We believe it is universally conceded that the compelling of electors to take oaths in certain cases comes within the letter and meaning of the Constitution, and as we have endeavored to show, the statute in question is the same in principle as previous legislation. The committee have already passed upon a similar question in the case of James S. Lyon against William Williams, by which we refused to allow the ballots of voters not registered, and the said report was sustained by the. House. There is no difference in principle between these votes and those rejected in the above case. In the case above referred to, three voters, who had voted the previous year and whose names were on the poll lists of the previous year, were not registered. By the statute in question, it was the duty of the board to register these voters, and they were not obliged to attend the board to be registered, but had the right to rely and trust in the faithful performance of their duty upon the part of the registers, in case above cited, and it can make no possible difference whether they attended the board, as in the previous case, or whether they relied upon their names being registered in pursuance of the statute, in neither of these cases is it shown that the registry board acted fraudulently or in bad faith. It is evident that they both were mistaken in the law, and in the one case failed or omitted to register legal voters, and in the other demanded additional conditions to be complied with not provided by the statute; but these conditions were general, and cannot possibly be construed as fraudulent. The vote of Jackson must be deducted from those of the contestant, and the vote of Le Qui cannot be allowed. The sitting member charges in his second allegation that Timothy Stanford voted for Joseph M. Murphy, and that he was not a legal voter on account of having been convicted and sentenced to the State prison for the crime of grand larceny. Stanford testified that he voted for the contestant in the third election district of Watervliet; that he took a democratic ticket, erased the name of Crawford and wrote thereon the name of the contestant, and voted it. (See evidence, pages 65 and 66.) The inspector for this district testifies that the name of Timothy Stanford is on the poll-lists as having voted for member of Assembly, and also that a democratic ticket was found with the name of contestant written thereon, as sworn to by said Stanford. This witness being uncontradicted and corroborated in these two points, we hold that we should not be justified to reject his evidence. (See evidence, page 68.) This man Stanford was not at the time a legal voter, he having previously been convicted of a felony and sentenced to the State prison, and by the law of this State he would not be permitted to vote unless restored to his civil rights by a pardon of the Governor. (See evidence, page 67.) Stanford was pardoned by the Governor, February 6, 1866, which restored his competency as a witness. (See evidence, page 79.) This vote must be deducted from those allowed the contestant. There was 'proof given by the sitting member relative to ballots not received by the inspectors, and claimed by him to have been improperly rejected, which we are not required to examine, as it cannot possibly affect the result, and we do not pretend to pass upon the question of fact, whether they were offered by the voters in question and improperly rejected. Granting that they were, we could not allow them to the sitting member; the most we could do in such cases would be to set the election aside, in case a sufficient number of legal ballots had been improperly rejected to change the result. It will be seen from the evidence that the committee refused to receive proof on the part of the contestant relative to a ballot found in the State box, in the fifth district of Watervliet, for Joseph M. Murphy, which should have been allowed. This evidence was rejected upon the ground that it was outside of the specifications. It was understood by all parties that they were to be held strictly to their specifications, and no injustice has been done the contestant by this ruling. The sitting member would have gone into proof as to other of his allegations, in case it had been necessary, or in case additional evidence had been adduced by the contestant. The undersigned believe that it is far better for the rights of all, and the good of the people of this State, that the law should be maintained, even if in some cases it may work a hardship, and that there would be far more danger to set law at naught because it might occasionally prevent an elector from voting. No human law can be perfectly executed or work exact justice, and we can only endeavor to approximate as near to a perfect standard as possible. From the above findings it is apparent that the sitting member, James T. Crawford, was duly elected member of Assembly from the fourth Assembly district of the county of Albany, at the last general election, by a majority of one, as will appear by the schedule hereto attached, marked A, and we do therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, That Hon. James F. Crawford was duly elected member of Assembly for the fourth Assembly district of the county of Albany, at the general election held in November, 1865, by a majority of all the legal votes cast therefor in said district, and that he is entitled to retain the seat in the Assembly now occupied by him. ALBANY, March 20, 1866. EDMUND L. PITTS. I concur in the foregoing report excepting so much thereof as passes upon the question of the constitutionality of the registry law of last year. In regard to that act, I cannot agree that the provisions thereof are within the spirit and intent of the Constitution. I, however, concede that until the law shall be declared by some competent judicial tribunal to be unconstitutional, we are bound by its provisions. WM. D. VEEDER. ALBANY, March 21, 1866. SCHEDULE (A) REFERRED TO. Whole number of votes cast for James F. Crawford. 2,340 Add one vote improperly drawn out in eighth election dis trict, Watervliet.. Crawford's vote..... Whole number of votes cast for Joseph M. Murphy... 2,339 trict, Watervliet.. 2 Add one vote found in judiciary box in western district of seventh ward.. 1 ...... 2,342 Deduct one vote of Thomas Jackson not registered. 1 Murphy's vote... Leaving majority for Crawford. ................ 2 2,340 1 Assembly Documents, vol. 7, 1866, No. 164. See Assembly Documents, 1866, vol. 4, No. 66, for memorial, reply, evidence, etc., etc. REPORT OF MINORITY OF COMMITTEE IN FAVOR OF AWARDING SEAT TO JOSEPH M. MURPHY. ASSEMBLY CHAMBER, March 21st, 1866. Mr. Levinger from the committee on privileges and elections, to which was referred the petition of Joseph M. Murphy, that he may be awarded the seat now occupied by Hon. James F. Crawford, reported in writing, dissenting from the views of the majority, as follows: IN ASSEMBLY, March 21st, 1866. MINORITY REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS, IN RELATION TO THE CONTESTED SEAT OF THE FOURTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT OF THE COUNTY OF ALBANY. The undersigned, one of the committee of privileges and elections of your honorable body, to which was referred the petition of Joseph M. Murphy, claiming that he was, at the general election held on the 7th day of November, 1865, duly elected a member of your honorable body, from the fourth Assembly district, in the county of Albany, and that he is entitled to the seat therein now possessed by James F. Crawford, does respectfully report: That he dissents from so much of the majority report made in this matter, as refers to the votes cast by Lewis Le Qui, in the eighth election district of the town of Watervliet, and by Thomas Jackson, cast in the same district. The subscriber is of the opinion that the vote cast by said Lewis Le Qui, at said election, and which was not canvassed, should have been counted, and should now be allowed in favor of Joseph M. Murphy, and that the vote cast by Thomas Jackson was properly allowed and counted for said Murphy, and should not now be deducted from his vote. In coming to this conclusion, the subscriber is well aware that in the case of Lyon v. Williams (just decided by the committee of privileges and elections, of which the subscriber is a member), the committee disallowed to James S. Lyon three votes cast by legal voters, whose names were not on the register of electors of the district in which they voted. The subscriber cannot now perceive how that commit |