Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1863-04-02
Tho Act Enabling Soldiers to Vote,
Constitutional
Those who Vote are Liable to do
Military Duty.
Opinions of Judge Paine, Dixon snd Cole
COncurring.

The State of Wisconsin eT rel. JOSEPH A. CHANDLER
against WILLET S. MAIN.
At the special session of the Legislature
in 1862, law was passed allowing the |
qualified electors of this State, who should |
be acting as volunteer soldiers in the ser
vice of the United States, to vote at the |
general fall elections. The law provided |
in detail the mode in which such votes |
should be taken, returned and canvassed. |
and that they might be given at whatever
places such soldiers should be located at
the time, whether within or without this
State.
At the election last fall, the relator re-
ceived majority of the votes cast in Dane
county for the office of Sheriff, exclusive
OF the votes of soldiers; but the latter
changed the result, and if properly CONT
ed, elected the respondent, who received
the certificate and entered upon the duties
of the office. This is proceeding by qu0
uarrant0, by which 1.-THE -elator seeks to
obtain possession of the Office, and the
only question presented, is as to the valid
ity of the law authorizing the soldiers to
vote. If that was valid, the relator must
fail; if void, he must succeed.
He claims it to be unconstitutional. But
with the exception of one clause which
will be hereafter specially noticed, it IS
conceded that there is no provision of the
constitution which attempts to prescribe
where the right of suffrage shall be exer-
cised, or to prohibit the Legislature from
authorizing it to be done outside of the
limits of this State. The place of voting
was left by the constitution to be regulated
by law. But even assuming this. the coun-
far o1otn A.
implied prohibition should be derived from
the nature and scope of the constitution
itself and the general principle that the
constitution and laws of country can
have no force beyond its territorial limits.
This is undoubtedly a we'll established
general principle, applicable to all govern
ments. And if this principle is applicable
to the law IN question, and the latter can
not be brought within any of the recog-
nized qualifications of the former, the act
must fail. Thus, if the legislature of this
State should pass law imposing duties
upon the citizens OF Illinois, to be per.
formed in Illinois, it would be void. And
it would be so, although there is no clause
in our constitution prohibiting the passage
of such law. 1t would be void BY
reason of the general principle referred to,
and because it would be outside of the
scope of the legislative power of this state.
1t might be said to demonstrations, al
though not prohibited, for the reason that
the constitution delegated to the legisIa-
ture only such legislative power as might
exist in this state Therefore an act leg
islating for Illinois would be outside of the
limits of that power, and might be said to
be unconstitutional, just as it has been
said that law attempting to take the
property of one man and give it to anoth-
er, was unconstitutional, though not pro-
hibted, because such an act was not with
in the scope of the legislative power.
But this principle has certain well de-
find and universally recognized qualifica-
tions. And although it is true as a gene
raj proposition that the laws of state
have no force outside of its territorial
limits, it is equally true that every state
may, IN the regu alton of its own
internal affairs, authorize certain acts
to be done outside of its limits, and
prescribe what effect they shall have
within them. Thus it pertains to ey-
cry state to prescribe in what manner title
to real estate within it shall be transferred.
Each state accordingly provides the mode
In which conveyances of land may be eX-
eouted in other states, and when so execu-
ted gives to them within its limits the
effect of working q legal transfer of the
title. And to facilitate this object it is
usual for each state to authorize the an
pOintment in other states of commissions
ers of deeds, who have authority to take
acknowledgements and do other acts, in
pursuance OF the laws of the state for
which they are appointed. And that state
gives to those acts when so done, Whatey.
er effect it pleases within its own borders.
We have such lsw in chapter So of the
Revised Statutes, and probably there is no
state in this country which has not sim
liar one.
Each state also prescribes the mode
in which wills may be executed in other
states, in order to dispose of real and per-
sonal property within it, and in what
manner dispositions may be taken ia other
states and countries to be used as evidence
its courts. This class of legislation has
been universally recognized as valid, Tor
the reason that although it authorizes acts
to be done outside of the country where it
is enacted, and specifies in what manner
they may be done, still the acts themselves
relate to the regulation of the internal af-
knowledged Jurisdiction, and have no ten
dency to interfere with the sovereignty of
the other states in which they may be per
formed.
The act authorized to be done bv the
law In question seems to be purely of this
character. 1t is the expression of the will
of an elector of this state, in regard to an
office to be held and exercised here. 1t is
an act that relates as entirely to the inter,
nal concerns of this state, and is as tree
from all tendency to interfere with the
sovereignty or jurisdiction of any other
state, where the ballots might happen to
be cast, as are any of the acts authorized
by the legislation just referred to. This
state has the acknowledged power of pro
viding in what manner title to the soil
here may be transferred. 1t provides a
mode by which it may be done in other
states, and if so done the transfer is valid.
1t has equal authority to provide the mode
in which the elector shall cast his ballot.
1t provides that he may do it in another
state. If SO done, why is the act not
equally valid with the other2 | can see
no distinction in principle between them
so far as relates to the power of the state
to authosize them to be done outside of its
territorial limits. Or rather if there Is
any distinction it is in favor of the law
authorizing the ballot, for that is matter
en- tirely between the state and its own
citizens. While the legsla ton before re-
ferred to, provides the mode in which the
citizens of other states as we'll as our own
must transfer their title to our soil by deed