both of said inspectors belong to the same political party, both of the overseers shall be taken from the opposite political party; said overseers shall have the right to be present with the officers of the election during the whole time the same is held, the votes counted and the returns made out and signed by the election officers; to keep a list of voters if they see proper; to challenge any person offering to vote, and interrogate him and his witnesses, under oath, in regard to his right of suffrage at said election, and to examine his papers produced; and the officers of said election are required to afford to said overseers so selected and appointed every convenience and facility for the discharge of their duties; and if said election officers shall refuse to permit said overseers to be present and perform their duties as aforesaid, or if they shall be driven away from the polls by violence or intimidation, all the votes polled at such election district may be rejected by any tribunal trying a contest under said election: Provided, That no person signing the petition shall be appointed an overseer."

Now, Mr. Chairman, the provision in regard to the power of these overseers of election to decide disputed questions on which the board differ is not at present before the committee. When we come to that provision of the section I shall desire to say a word upon it. At present the only question is, whether you will authorize the appointment of these persons? You see that now, under the law, there must be a specific application from each election district where these appointments are to be made, and the application must be accompanied by an oath which a man can seldom swear to at all before tha election. Because of those imperfections of the statute, this act has not been efficient, and these officers, when they have been appointed in a few cases, have simply been regarded as spies, and have been treated with contempt in election rooms.

They have exercised no useful, no beneficial power or authority, any more than the watchers appointed by the United States courts and sent into these election rooms. I shall endeavor to show, when the subsequent part of this section is under consideration, that the provision that these two overseers shall have the right to participate in the decisions made by the board will make them efficient officers and that they will be most useful.

Mr. S. A. PURVIANCE, Allow me to ask the gentleman in what way be intends that these overseers shall maintain the integrity of the ballot?

Mr. BUCKALEW. I am glad the gentleman has called my attention to that. I have no objection as one member of the committee, though I cannot speak for the others, to omit such language as may be open to dispute.

Mr. LEAR. I desire to make a suggestion to, rather than to ask a question of, the gentleman.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I yield.

Mr. LEAR. The language I think is objectionable, and I suggest this amendment: Strike out the words "to maintain," and insert "so that," in the fourth line, and in the fifth line insert, after the word "counted," the words, "may be maintained,' and then it will read in this wise: "To appoint overseers of election to supervise the proceedings of election officers and general management of elections, so that the integrity of returns and of the ballot received and counted may be maintained, and report," &c.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I have no objection to that. I have no objection, if the committee tink proper to omit these particular words, leaving it to the Legislature. Of course they can pass laws to carry out these provisions, to provide details. I will illustrate what I mean by the language which is used here, to the gentleman from Allegheny. I would have a provision of law that these overseers of election, or at least one of them, should accompany the return judge who makes the return, which he files in the office of the prothonotary, and should also see that the box in which the tickets are deposited shall be conveyed and placed in the proper depository. These are examples of the regulations which I would make with reference to these overseers of election. I would not have them mere spies at the election board, without any power or duty beyond simply looking on and to be treated with contempt as they are now. I would make provisions similar to what I have suggested, that they shall accompany the election return to the proper office where the paper is to be deposited, and see that it is placed there; that they shall accompany the election box in which the votes of the people have been deposited to the depository where it is to be placed, whether in the hands of a neighboring magistrate, to be retained by him, or as in the case of Philadelphia, in a vault,

Mr. LILLY. Mr. Chairman: I was a member of this committee. We examined this subject very thoroughly and looked at it in all its phases and we were forced to this conclusion-I do not know whether it was a violent conclusion or not that some men were honest in the State of Pennsylvania and that some men might be relied upon for their honesty, and amongst those we classed the judges of the courts throughout the State. The evidence we had before us was that all over the State wherever the judges have had control of these matters and have made reports on contested election cases, they have acted honestly. Therefore I do not think that our presumption is so terribly wrong as some gentlemen on the oor here would seem to suppose, that because a man wears the ermine of a court he is not a rascal. The presumption with some appears to be that because we put these appointments into the hands of the judge, the judge is a rascal and he is going to appoint a lot of rascals to supervise

the election.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Brodhead,) after the word "two," in the tenth line, to insert "or more," and after the word "number" to insert "as the exigency of the case may require."

The amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the first division of the section.

Mr. H. W. PALMER. I move to strike out all after the word "officers," in the fourth line, down to the word "and," where it occurs the third time in the fifth line.

The words I propose to strike out are: "And general management of elec tions to maintain the integrity of returns and of the billots received and counted;"

so as to make the clause read :

"The courts of common pleas of the several counties of the Commonwealth shall have power within their respective juris

diction to appoint overseers of election to supervise the proceedings of election officers, and to make report to the court," &c. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the delegate from Luzerne.

Mr. H. W. PALMER. On this amendment I wish to be heard. Defective and poor as is the existing provision of the law upon the subject of the appointment of overseers of elections, it has worked great good in our district. It has been found simply impossible to hold honest elections in some precincts there except under the supervision of men appointed by the courts. There are certain infected districts in which the people do not and will not choose proper election officers, and the consequence is that the result of every election in that county is held in abeyance until the election boards of such districts make up their minds which way they will make their returns. The votes cast on election day afford no indication at all of what the vote will be when the return judges meet. Returns are held by the election officers for sale. The party who will give the most for the majority will get it; and it frequently happens that the balance of power is held by one or two of these infected districts, and the returns

come in one thousand two hundred or one thousand five hundred majority one way or the other just as the election officers happen to be bought and paid last. Therefore it is that some such provision as this is an absolute necessity. The elec tions can only be saved, it seems to me, by some such provision. The act of Assembly allowing the courts to appoint watchers has been tried; we have had practical experience under it; and it has been found to work well; and as amended in the manner I propose, I hope the section will be adopted. It certainly is the best plan yet devised under which a fair election can be held in many section of the State.

On the question of agreeing to the amendment proposed by Mr. H. W. Palmer, a division was called for, which resulted forty-eight in the affirmative, and twenty-three in the negative. So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. D. N. WHITE. I understood that the whole section was open to consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir.

Mr. D. N. WHITE. Then I withdraw my amendment for the present.

party on the one side or on the other, not to know that there are political parties. We have no business in this Convention to look outside of our legitimate functions and know that political parties exist. We ought to look to the general good of the people of this Commonwealth. The peo

The first division as amended was

agreed to.

Their interests run together and blend in such a way that except simply in election times, we know nothing of parties. In the

Mr. BUCKALEW. I ask for a further division, which will accommodate the gentleman from Allegheny. I would have the second division end at the second sentence, and then I would have a further division at the end of the third sentence, so as to have a distinct vote on each of these three propositions.

The CHAIRMAN. The divisions will be so made, and the Clerk will read the next division.

The CLERK read as follows: "Overseers shall be two in number for an election district, and shall be persons qualified to serve upon election boards, and in each case members of different political parties."

political divisions of society are not known at all, and in my opinion, it will be a very bad innovation to introduce into the Constitution anything that recognizes political parties and distinctions of that kind and that they shall be kept up, because you cannot appoint two of these overseers unless you have two parties, as the section says expressly one of them must be from each political party. I think this clause ought to be stricken out.

I am opposed to the whole section and the whole article for several other reasons, one of which I will mention. It is a subject that belongs entirely to the Legislature and a subject that we never ought to incorporate in this Constitution at all. We are making provisions here that are dangerous in their nature and tendency, and we are making a perpetuity of them. The gentleman from Columbia (Mr. Buckalew) read to us from an act of Assembly in regard to these overseers which he says

Mr. STRUTHERS. Mr. Chairman: We have here what at the outset of this Convention we took particular care to avoid, and that is an express recognition of political parties. The idea of political partyism entering into this Convention was one which attracted attention from the the start, and thus far, or nearly always thus far, it has been avoided. There have been some indirect approaches to it, but here we have it expressly brought forward. Here you are converting your Convention into a body for the very purpose of creating and sustaining political parties, because if there must be members upon the election boards of different political parties, you must keep up and sustain two parties from which to get them.

It is not part of the business of this Convention to have anything to say about political parties. We are here to legislate and provide for the general interests of

factory. Let it go on in the hands of the Legislature then, and when it is found to work badly, as I think it will, it can be altered. But in God's name don't place it in the Constitution.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Will the gentieman from Warren allow himself to be interrupted?

Mr. STRUTHERS. Certainly.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I desire to ask the gentleman whether he does not observo that the existing law, now four years old, uses precisely this language which it is proposed to adopt in the present section. If the gentleman will be gratified by having the word "parties" omitted and the word "organizations" substituted, I have no objection. This section only recognizes a fact-the existence of parties in every election district from one end of the State to the other.

Mr. STRUTHERS. The change of words, of same import, amounts to nothing. I have the same objection to the legislation

that I would have to a constitutional provision upon this subject, except that if it be placed in the Constitution and the people get tired of it, they cannot change it; whereas if it is left in the hands of the Legislature and the people in their experience find it to work adversely to their interests, they can apply to the Legislature and have the legislation repealed.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I would like to ask the gentlemau from Warren whether he would entertain, for one moment, the proposition that the judges should appoint both these officers from their own party? Mr. STRUTHERS. I would not know that there was any party at all. It ought not to be known. Why should we talk about parties? We ought not to use any language in this Constitution that recognizes any party as existing in the State.

Another objection to this section is that it gives the appointment-that has been argued, however, and I do not wish to occupy time unnecessarily-it gives the whole control of these elections into the hands of the courts through these overseers. It appears to me that that is withdrawing this power from the people. We had better elect these overseers, if they are needed, and hold the elections ourselves. This section proposes to take the power entirely out of the hands of the people, where it has been lodged and where it ought to remain.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Warren.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. HUNSICKER. I move to amend, by striking out the word "two" and inserting the words, "not exceeding three." The amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN.

upon the division.

The question recurs

On the question of agreeing to the second division of the section, a division was called for, which resulted: Thirty-five in the affirmative and fifteen in the negative.

So the second division was agreed to. Mr. STRUTHERS. It appears that there is less than a quorum in the House.

The CHAIRMAN. The third division is before the committee of the whole, and will be read.

The CLERK read as follows: "Whenever the members of an election board shall differ in opinion, the overseers present, if they shall be agreed, shall de cide the question of difference."

Mr. BUCKALEW. I desire to say one word. I spoke before of the importance

of giving these officers positions in the election room with dignity and authority, so as to make their appointment worth something. Now, observe; they cannot act at all unless both of them agree in opinion, and then they must have with that agreement the additional sanction of one of the two inspectors. This will enable these persons sent there by the court, representing both great parties, to interpose efficiently when wrong is proposed to be done. And observe, also, the only interference that these overseers can have with the decisions of the election board will be public. It will be where the question is open and where the people can debate it and can understand it, and where the overseers in every decision they make will act under a sense of public opinion and responsibility to the court which appoints them.

Mr. MACCONNELL. Will the gentleman from Columbia allow himself to be interrupted?

Mr. BUCKALEW. Certainly.

Mr. MACCONNELL. Suppose the election boards disagree and the overseers disagree, who is then to decide the difference?

Mr. BUCKALEW. The case is then left precisely as it is now, to the decision of the judge. He gives the majority vote as he does now. It is only where the representatives of the two great parties, the overseers appointed by the court for their integrity, to keep elections pure, can agree about a question that they can interpose. It is only in such a case that the court, through its appointees, can check fraud and wrong.

Mr. MACCONNELL. do not agree?

But suppose they

Mr. BUCKALEW. Then the presumption is that the matter is not clear and that it is not a manifest wrong.

Mr. MACCONNELL. Still that does not remedy the difficulty where the overseers do not agree.

Mr. BUCKALEW. If they do not agree, they do not decide anything. It is only when they both agree that a wrong can be arrested.

I beg gentlemen to observe that this is the vital provision in this section, to give this important subject of the appointment of overseers efficiency. You cannot have these officers efficient if they are sent into the election room to look on simply, and to be treated as spies or intruders. You give them this appellate power to be exercised only in'in a case where the pre

sumption is that wrong is attempted or that the question is doubtful, and that their decision will be right, and in that way you will give them a sufficient control over fraud and wrong. I beg gentlemen not to introduce here suppositions remote, improbable and contingent. I beg them to look at this as the only mode by which the authority of the court may be made efficient, and then only when both these election overseers, representing both sides, agree.

Mr. DARLINGTON. Mr. Chairman: For the life of me, I cannot yet understand how you are to bring into operation these overseers. This provision is, "whenever the members of an election board shall differ in opinion." There are but three, and it is the very object of having three that if there be a difference of opinion there will be one to decide. The judge elected by the majority decides between the inspectors elected by their parties. You have got three; and what is the object of this provision, that in case there be a difference of opinion between the one and the other two as to the right of any body to vote or any other question arising at an election, these two appointees if they agree shall rule that question? In other words, you take it out of the hands of those elected from both parties to decide, and say it shall be done by the men appointed by the judge of the court in case they agree.

Mr. J. N. PURVIANCE. I wish to suggest to the gentleman from Chester to move this, in the twelfth line, after the word "parties" insert: "But shall not have power to over-rule decisions of the board of election officers," and then strike out all down to the word "difference, "in the fourteenth line.

Mr. DARLINGTON. That will do me a great deal better than this. This is highly objectionable in every aspect of it. If the gentleman from Butler wishes to move to amend, I will give way.

Mr. J. N. PURVIANCE. Mr. Chairman: I move the amendment I have indicated, to strike out all after the word "parties," in the twelfth line, down to the word "difference," inclusive, in the fourteenth line, and insert, "but shall not have power to over-rule the decisions of the board of election officers."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the delegate from Butler.

Mr. H. W. PALMER. I quite agree with the chairman of the committee, that this 4.-Vol. V.

is the vital part of this section. We may as well vote down the whole section as vote this down, and this amendment moved by the gentleman from Butler is quite unnecessary. It is useless to provide that these overseers shall not over-rule the election boards. Up to the point when the amendment occurs in the section, no power is given the overseers to do anything with the election boards at all, except to supervise their proceeding. There is no occasion for putting in the amendment, because we have not given them power to over-rule the board. I repeat, that down to the word "parties," in the twelfth line, there is nothing in the section that gives the overseers power to do anything except to supervise the election, and they cannot over-rule the election boards; and therefore there is no occasion for prohibiting their doing that which it is impossible for them to do.

Now, as to this provision that when the members of the election board shall differ in opinion the overseers shall decide the question of difference, the value of that consists mainly in this, that it makes these overseers appointed by the court a part of the election board. It gives them some standing and some authority, and they are not mere interlopers as they have always been regarded heretofore. Those that have been appointed under the act of Assembly have been regarded as mere spies and interlopers sent there, not to take part in the election, but to spy out what may go on wrong, and in many instances they have been driven away from the polls by violence and intimidation. If they are made a part of the election board they go there with just as much authority as any election officer to take part in the election, and see that it is properly and fairly conducted. It is only an additional safeguard thrown around the purity of the ballotbox. It is suggested that the Legislature can do all that is here provided. That is true; but while we are on this subject we may as well fix it, and fix it right, and to stay. The Legislature may not see fit to do it. This provision cannot hurt the election because, as has already been remarked, these overseers must agree or they are powerless. They must belong to different parties, and before they can interfere with any decision of the election board they must agree. I beg that gentlemen will not strike this out.

Mr. BOWMAN. I should like to ask the gentleman a question. Upon the supposition that the court will appoint none but