Burlington tri-weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington [Iowa]) 1852-1855, 1855-02-08
0ualification Of Voters.

twenty-one years who snail have resided 1
in said city, six months Immediately prece-
ding any election for city officers shall be
deemed qualified voter Of said city. Sec.
9th.
Article 2nd.; Sec. 1st Of the constitution
Of the State of Iowa, adopted the 18th day
Of May 1916, says that "Every white male
citizen Of the United States Of the age of
twenty lone years who shall have been res
ident Of the State nix months next preceding
the election, and the county in which he
claims his vote twenty days shall be entitled
to vote at all the elections which are now or
may be hereafter authorized by law"
Now ssD.'' in his article in the Gazette of
Saturday morning says that the Hawk-Eye
claims citizenship as a qualification Of
voter in our city elections, from which posi-
ton he 3D." dissents. Now 3D." holding
a very important and responsible office, where
he may be often called upon to construe the
law, is presumed to be good lawyer, and
his opinions are entitled to great considera-
ton, but at the same time they are not final,
and may be reviewed by any citizen.
Every lawyer, and the great mass Of man.
kind, know that the constitution of a State
is the supreme law of tho land, and every
law or ordinance in conflict with its provis
ions whether passed before or after its adop-
ton has no binding efficacy.
The charter says each and every white
male inhabitant, &C., shall be entitled to
vote: the constitution says that every white
male citizen of the United States, shall be
entitled to vote at all elections, which are
now or may be authorized by law.
Now here is palpable conflict between
the charter and the constitution. 3D."
admits that the constitution prescribes what
sscitizen may do," but says it does not say
what an ssalien mag not do" This seems
to be new species Of logic, invented pre-
sumo 10 he fertile Imagination of D. hims If,
but certainly never dreamed of by any other
logician. The constitution does not say what
aliens may not do, therefore they are en-
titled to do, whatever the charter says they
may do! The constitution says that every
white male citizen, shall be entitled to vote.
1t does not say that no negro shall vote; sup
pose the charter should say every male in
habitant should vote, would d. consider
such qualified electors. But D. knows very
we'll that when the constitution prescribes
who are qualified voters, that thereby all
others are precluded. But then he takes the
ground that the provisions Of the constitu-
ton are only applicable to State and county
officers, and that the election of officers, I'M
der the city govcrnme mt are Independent of
the constitution.
But the constitution after defining the
qualifications of electors says they are ent-
tied to vote at all elections. What is the on
~ legitimate deduction from this language
but that no person who does not possess those
qualifications is entitled to vote at any cleo
ton, for any Office of either tae State, coun-
ty, or city government. Here then by the
constitution, we find citizenship an indispen-
sible prerequisite of an elector, at all cleo
tons authorized by law.
The organic law of the territory of Iowa,
says, that the right of suffrage shall only be
exercised by citizens of the United States
Here then we have the organic law, which
was the constitution Of the territory, saying
the right Of suffrage shall only be exercised
by citizens of the United States, and the
constitution making citizenship necessary
qualification of an elector at all elections
authorized by law, and yet CD" says these
are general laws, and the city charter is
special law defining its own qualifications.
Here then we have 3d." in one part of
his article affirming that there is no conflict in
the two laws, that of the constitution and
that Of the charter, and why, because one is
a general and The other is a special law.
Does not his very language imply conflict,
and his argument attempt classification?
The constitution being the supreme law,
any special law conflicting with its provisions
is of necessity null and void, and to talk of
any epecidl law being in conflict with the
provisions of the supreme law and yet legit-
innate to my mind is simply absurd.
But the most extraordinary part of the
whole argument of 3d." is, that there is
ssno repu gnancy in the provisions of the
charter and those of the constitution be-
cause in regard to the qualifications Of cleo
tors the constitution ssdecares what citizen
may do" and does not say what Gan alien
may not do" g.
STRIPED PFC WITH SHE'LL oN.-They have
etrln nf Oh; on half