The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1863-12-24

ute void. unless the nullty ana invalidity
Of the act be placed, in their judgement, be
/ yond reasonable doubt" So in Kentucky
: It is held that fit be doubtful or question.
able whether the Legislature has exceeded
its limits, the judiciary cannot interfere
: though It may not be satisfied that the act
Is constitutional. 70 Mon. 1871 And to
the same effect are the following cases, a.
: well as many others. City of Lexington vs.
McQulen Q Dana 5l4; Griffith ct alvs O.
. q / R. Go. 30 Ohio fAppendix IL
) Cooper VS. Telfair Dallas ID. The State
, ex rel W County Judge blows $50; Tel.
fair vs McGin l Grry l Tyler vs. the peo.
, pie Mich s3s.
: In the view of this well settled rule. reco
n'zed in the foregoing cases, we feel entirely
satisfied as to our duty in the present case
J There rs certainly = substantial doubt-it IL
certainly true that we cannot, with conclu
s've satisfaction place onr finger upon the
languages Of the Constitution. which is clear.
ly and palpably violated--[5 Mich. 25l1-
ana though we might not be satisfied OF its
Iconstitutionalitv.-y il not satisfied of its
pnconstitu'ionality, it is our duty to uphold
the law. And this view we present. because
the law, the power possessed bv courts, the
whole current OF aiiudcatioas. the frame
work Of our State government. render ito
eminent'y just and sustainable, with no dis.
position to shrink from the discharge of du.
ty. As no court should fail, in a proper
case, to pronounce against the validity Of !
law. when necessary-neither should il by
metaphysical doubts aud dificultie, defv
and overrule the public whl bv shov;no
that the power exercised BY the Legislature
was or might be questionable.
The foregoing considerations dispo,, Of
the body of the case. Other par Is of II or
points made, are but arguments adduced
20 show the unconstitutionality of the act,
the inexpediency Of such legislation, or cor.
oiarles from the preceding or min prsno.
sltion. The length Of The opinion forbid.
that We should examine them ir. detail.
Briefly we remark, however, that with
the expectancy of the law we have notb;no
tn do. II is sufficient that the Lepisl.tpr.
has declared this As part Of the public pol.
icy Of the State.
As to the thought that the c,nyen,ion
framing the Constitution never contemp,,.
a l
ted or dreamed ofauthori1ing ballot to he
taken outside of the State. we refer to what
has already been said, and to the opinion in
the Wisconsin case above crited. The ar. {
gument is there placed in clear and to our
minds, satisfactory form, and we could nct
hone to add to it's concusveness bv fnrther
extra territorial operauon-=rnxS
4 State can only have operation within It's
limits, and that as this law provides for the
organization Of election boards, the holding
OF an election, the administr terine Of oaths
beyond the State. or within the jurisdiction
of other tribunals. and for the punishment
Of illegal voting and false swearing in such
elections it is necessarily invalil.
We are not aware that any Of the cases
cited and replied upon nv counsel intimate
that . law Of this character would be inva-
lid for the reason stated. On the contrary.
one of them at least. [the Connecticut case.
as we have already seen, expressly holds
that the time, place and manner are COM
United to the Legislature, the reception Of
votes out Of tho State may be constitution
ally authorized. Not only so, but the law
is intended TO act npon, and give rule for
the government Of the citizens, residents or
subjects Of the State though they may be
out of the State--upon subject and in re-
lation to matter which concerts and ef-
fects them as such citizens or snbjects-and
which effects also the sovereignty Of this
State and in no manner concerns any other
jurisdiction. That persons violating the law
cannot he punished until they c,ms or are
brought, without vialation Of the rights Of
another sovereignty. within the territorial
jurisdiction ofttis State. avsils nothing. for
as is well said by B. ,nsen. ]. in Adams va.
The People. Comstock 17s, this is no
more than happens when . criminal escapes
after having committed . crime within the
State. Jurisdiction. Of the off.nce or sub
lject matter. is a very different thing: And
upon this subject. see also Tyler Va. The
People 7 Mich. ls2.-s ID. s2o-2 DEMO
100.
But suppose no penalty was provided for
false swearing or illegal voting -or that those
if any. guilty in these respects cannot be
punished, does it therefore follow that in
. proceeding Of this character, We would be
justified in declaring the entire act void
II the Legislature in the general election
law, should fail to provide penalty for ille-
gal voting. would the result be that the act
should have no operation, and that all the
votes cast would be illegal? 1t seems to
Us most clearly not. Then again in what
: does such legislation differ from those Acts
found in al! the States, authorizing the
appointment Of commissioners abroad to
take depo sitions. acknowledge deeds, and
the like as also the taking Of depositions
in other States to be used in our courts
Can those swearing ial>ly in such cases, be
: punished in this State, Ifnot, is the ties
: t,mony therefore to be rejected. This ha.
never been the holding Of AM court to ou
: knowledge.
9 Looking therefore in Conclusion. to bosl