Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1863-12-18
The soldiers votingIaw

Judge QFkY, Of Cambridge, has render
ed an opinion on this law and decides that it
Is constitutional. We see it stated that the
oopinion iS Sextra-j -judicialand was pronounc-
ed without any lease being before him, and
I, ifdh's ,Betrue, the opinion may be regarded
simply as an exposition of. his views of the
law, and, therefore, lacks the authority of a
judicial decision pronounced from the
bench. a,,i
Judge OKEY occupies prominent posi-
tion i'm the Common, Pleas Court and is re-
garded as a good judge. He was favorably
, spoken Of for nomination for Supreme Judge
at the Democratic. Convention of 1862 and
was withdrawn by his friends when Judge
RANNEY's name was announced. Inthe
Convention6fS1S63, Judge oKEY was vigor-
ously Supported. for the Supreme Bench
nomination, at which time Judge VAN
TRUMPswasAnominated. Judge OKEY has
always maintained good reputationamong
DemecratsSas sound and f'tithful menu
berof the party. '. ,
The law allowing soldiers to vote, while
in the army, was first urged by?thesD Demo-
cratic members of the General Assembly in
the session of4s62,; and was defeated'bysth
Abolitionists, whohad, the majority in both
branches. The Democratic PRESS Of the
State, without exception. we believe, de-
nounced the Abolitionists for refusing to
pass the law, andS the Democratic State
Convention of July 4th, 1867, passed reso.-
luton of cepsure on thedominant party be-
cause Of its refusal,to pass the Soldiers .Vot-
ing bill. SAMUEL MEDARY Presided'at that
Convention, and the Committee. on Resolu-
tions was composed of able menu Mr.. VAL
LASDIGHAM being among the.nlmber. We
take it, that the Committee and the Con-
vention believed atit%as within the con-
stitutional power Of the Legislature to pass
: a law by which the rtght4ef Suffrage could
be extended to the soldiers in the Army,
and temporarily absent from the State.
The same Legislature, which, in 1862 re-
fused to pass law for that purpose, enacted
the exisfing law at theiradj djourned session in
1868. The awpassed is different in its pro-
yisiens-fr the one proposed in 1852, and is
sdefective, and no doubt Liable to abuse. The
Democrats sough hftogemeds the defects, but
were overruled, the Notwithstanding caucus
ed the measure and put& Through according
to their own notions. "SS1he .ofthe leading
legal members in the dominant party, who
in 1862 averred that the Legislature could
not under the Constitution3pass any law to
enable persons out of the Statetovote, turn
ed round, and, in the sessi6nsof 1868, were
strenuous advocates for the hemeasure.
1t is undoubtedly the rigHtsof any candi-
date who was defeated by.thessoldiers' vote
to test the constitutionalitS Of the law, and
that win no doubt be done.' OF the exer-
else of this right no one Sap.complain, and
the result viii be ajudicl1f decision which
will put the question atpest. ItJmay bel
that the Supreme Court ssiit decide the law
unconstitutional and ifitAhould do SO, the
decision would be favorably received both
at home and in the Army, since experience
has shown that voting under the, law, is a
mockery. The refusal toaHow full and free
discussion in the Army; the exclusion of
Democratic papers from the soldiers; and
the force, and even violence, used by the
officers to compel result such as they de-
sire, render an election in the Army for
civil officers at home, a bdrlesque and Moth
ing else. But theseabises do not affect the
constitutionality offRe law, and until that
is decided by the ptgPer tribunal, Demo-
Gratis should not betin hurry to make
themselves Inconsistent on the subject.
~ fsi' i