Saint Paul weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1858-1859, 1859-03-26

VnaC us reasons OIL PaPoA "oAo'
10. 2...The Election OF Congressman
Sibley,s Reasons for Disfranchising
Minnesota Examined.
In the previous number we quoted from
he Pioneers defence of Mr.. SIBLaY for his |
,eto of the bill which would have allowed . |
Congressional election last October, the fol- |
ing distinct admission:
at Is true that at the close of the session, law
passed both branches of the Legislature, entitled
u An Act regulating general elections, and pre-
'cribing the duties of officers in relation thereof
md that under this law, elections could have been
held last October for Representatives In Con-
yress"
And we made the point on the above,
that according to this admission, there was no
doubt that Mr.. SHELLEY knew, when he fled
bis veto, that he was disfraneaising the Pso-
Pile Of Minnesota Of their proper representation
in Congress, or was trying his best to do so!
and we observed, that in assuming so fear
full responsibility to subserve his party's in
terests and his own, the reasons he offers for
his course had needs be Overwhelmingly
strong and imperative, to enable him to escape
a torrent of popular indignation. To-day we
propose to examine what those reasons amount
ed to. The Pioneer thus gave the Congress
sional Election Veto in full:
AUGUST 1S.-I withhold my approval from an
"Act regulating general electione and prescribing
the duties of officers in relation thereto" for the
reason that section 35 is unconstitutional 1t pre-
scribes that in case of tie in the number of votes
cast for executive officers, the two Houses shall
forthwith proceed to elect one OF SAID persons to
the Office for which he received said tie vote. The
Constitution contains provision for transferring
the right of suffrage from the people to the Legis
lature but says expressly that the executive Off
GERS referred to "shall be chosen by the electors
of the State" shall leave that right of suffrage
where the Constitution leaves it-wth the electors
of the State. Another objection is in section 10.
1t gives the judges of election the right to reject
votes even when sworn in if it shall be proved to
the satisfaction Of majority of the judges, that
the person offering to vote is not qualified cleo
tor. Such arbitrary power would afford great
temptation to abuse, in the hands of interruptions
men and should not be conferred. Sufficient pro.
lection is now provided by law, in the right of
challenge. If the challenged party swear falsely,
Signed. H. H. sIBLEY.
SO, these are the ostensibe reasons why
the right of the People of Minnesota to elect
Congressman to the House of Representa-
tves of the U. S., was deliberately vetoed or
forbidden by Acting Executive SIBLEY-and
why we will have to act independently of
State laws, though at the regular and legal
State election, if the Sovereignty of Minneso-
ia is at all represented in the lower branch of
Congress prior to December, 1860.
Knowing, by the personal confessions of
prominent Democrats, that those assigned in
the veto are not the real reasons for this act,
but were Matched up after the secret of the
effect of the bill to authorize Congressional
election was exposed to Mr.. SIBLEY, we also
know, that which is transparent to everybody,
that they are weak, feeble, and insufficient
reasons, at least, for such momentous
course.
A brief examination of them will prove
this. Let us take his last reason first, and
see what it amounts to. Mr.. SHELLEY tells us
in substance, that he vetoes the bill because
section 10 thereof allowed the sworn officers Of
an election poll. to reject a ballot whenever
they had sufficient proof that the person Of:
fering it was not entitled to vote-whensvez
they were positively satisfied, either from
their own knowledge or the testimony of 9th
ers, that the offering voter had ignorantly OF
designedly foresworn himself! This is the
gist of the last of Mr.. SIBLEY's two reasons
for DISTINGUISHING the State of its Members Of
Congress.
We take it upon ourselves to declare, that
there is no soundpess in it whatever. In
scarcely any other State of the Union, do the
election laws offer such premium for election
perjuries, as do the present laws in Minnesota
to test voters right to suffrage after he is
challenged. In other states the officers of the
election must first be thoroughly satisfied by
a variety of tests, that the person claiming to
vote, is really and Enthusiastically entitled to
do so. They are not Obliged to take the vo-
tiers own word for it, nor his oath even, if the
personal knowledge of the judges, or other
sufficient evidence contradlcts him.
But, Mr.. SIBLEY urges, that such ''arbitra-
ry power would afford great temptation to
abuse in the hands of unscrupnlous men,"
This is not good argument; for there is
scarcely any of the powers of government
but in the "hands of INSCRIPTIONS men -
might be abused-as the right of suffrage is
often abused in the "hands of INSCRIPTIONS
men but would he therefore argue against
comforting power necessary to the order and
good government Of society, or required to
prevent fraud and punish viliainy ?-or would
he abolish suffrage altogether because the
vilest abuses are committed under its pretext?
Arbitrary power!" What nonsense is
this. The Governor of our State has much
arbitrary power" incidental to his station,
being responsible for its "abuse," just as
judges of election would be amenable to pun
ishment if they abused" their powers The
judges of our Courts have plenty of arbi-
trary power" over our lives and property, as
have also Juries: an immense sight being
trusted to the "arbitrary" discretion of both:
the latter if rnscrupulous," being indeed al
most beyond the reach of any punishment, if
they are tempted" to abuse their powers :;
but would Mr.. SHELLEY, therefore, abolish the
Judiciary, of dispense altogether with Juries
or limit their Independent discretion
eff the challenged party swear falsely he
may be punished for it." saith Mr.. SIBLEY.-
Why, so also witness before a Court NAV
be punished, yet witnesses are allowed to be
cross-examined pretty severely, to try if they
have not sworn falsely: and Courts and Ju-
ries frequently take the liberty of utterly dis
crediting and rejecting the testimony of sworn
witnesses! Scandulous, isn't it, Mr.. SHELLEY?
You, we presume, would peto cross-examina-