Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1863-05-21
Democratic Support Of the Soldiers
Law.

The Democratic press and the Democratic
members Of the Legislature have. from the
beginning, been in favor Of law to allow
the soldier, to vote. They labored for il
and helped to pass it.-lColumbus States
man
by the law Of this State, our gallant
soldiers will have voice in the next cleo
ton; An effort has been made to prejudice
the Democratic soldiers in the army, against
their political brethern at home, by alleging
that they are hostile to the exercise Of the
electlve franchise by the army. Nothing
could be more hideously false. : Cleveland
Plain Dealer.
Thus assert the Statesman and Plain
Dealer. Now the facts taken from the re
cord, prove that there is not a syllable o.
truth in the assertion Of either
At the last regular session Of the Lsgis.
lature, year ago last winter, on the very
last day Of its session, in the evening, a bill
allowing soldiers to vote was reported in the
House. The bill was crude, undigested,
imperfect and unsatisfactory, and, withou,
any opposition to such course, it was post
poned until the adjourned session of thi.
last winter, when the bill coming up in the
House substitute was offered by Union
member. A very important feature in this
bill was the 9Th section, which provided that
each soldier should write his name on the
back of his ballot. Tho Democrats, under
lead of Converse Of franklin and Smyth Of
Licking, attacked this provision on the score
that it destroyed the secrecy of the ballot /;
but this feature was agreed to-, and the bill
went tothc Senate. In the Senate, the
Sth section was stricken out lest it might be
held unconstitutional. :
The bill came back to the House when
Converse, Smyth and all the Democrats
wheeled square around and insisted upon
the Sth section being retained in the BILL
or course the only motive for such change
OF base" was that the law, if passed. might
be held to be unconstitutional The House
through the aid Of the Democratic mem
bers who had thus faced about-voted to
adhere to that section and Committee of
Conference was appointed.
This Committee, on the llth of April,
two days before the adjournment, reported
in favor Of striking out the Sth section, or
essentially modifying it, 1t should be noted
that this was the second Committee of Con-
ference, the first one having failed to agree.
As the time was short, and as this report
was from the second Committee on that
subject, the fate Of the bill itself hung up.
on the vote which this report should receive.
A vote against it being, under the circum-
stances, fatal to the bill.
The vote stood City one Union votes for
the report, against t,ocaty one Democratic
rotes against the report. Not Democratic
rote 'ods cast IN frcor of the report. There
the fate Of the. measure was settled, and the
bill was saved by Union votes, erey Demo.
crdtso coting as to Kill It..
The Democrats on the start fought against
this sth section, and yet voted to retain it,
when by so doing there was chance of
passing an unconstitutional bill, or by the
disagreement of the two Houses on the re-
port Of tie Committee of Conference, there
was chance Of defeating the till.
Now with this record staring them in the
face the Statesman and the Plain Dealer
claim that the Democratic Representatives
favored the bill. They may tell that to
marines but soldiers will not believe them.
-LCleveland Herald.