Mineral Point weekly tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1859-1868, 1863-04-01

R6laS 10 iu4uiHo Observation-Disclosures /
BY DEMONSTRATION. For f is not neces-
'ary to inquire after say other grant OF
power than 4thegeneral grant IF the legis-
IF tie legisstiye power il is coupetent tor |
he Legislature 10 enact i uniese prohibi.
ed. This rule with respect e the state |
legislatures is too well .settled to need a
reference to authorities.
And it is not enough to say that |
the trainers c. the constitution new
law authorizing ballot to be cast outside
Of the State. That may be conceded but
no prohibition can be implied from it,
The legislative power may undoubtedly do
many things in the progress of society,
that the trainers of the Constitution never
thought of. It is not enough TO say that
such laws are unusual and have never been
passed before. This must be admitted
but no case can be found where such facts
have been held to amount to aproh,Di-
ton upon legislative action.~Qn the con-
trary the rule b well settled, CO stated by
the Supreme Court of Michigan in Tyler
rs. the People, 9Th Mich. 333, shat to
warrant us in declaring statute uncon-
stitutionel, we should be able tO<lay our
finger on the part of tho O0nstitntion vio
lated, and that the infraction shouid be
clear and free from reasonable doubt"
AS has already been said, via onasex-
ception, no clause of the Oonstitutfon was
relied on as amounting to q prohibition
That exception related to section 5, Arti-
Gle 13, which is as follows: ssAll persons
residing upon Indian lands within any
county OF the State and qualified to exer-
else the right of suffrage under this Con-
stitution, shall be entitled to vote at the
polls which may be held nearest thei r res.
idence for State, United States, or county
officers; provided that no person shall
rote for county officers oat Of the county
an achich he resides"
What is the meaning of this pr.viso 2
Did it mean to prohibit any voter from
ever being allowed to cast his ballot outside
of the county in which he resided, though
voting for officers of such county, or did it
mean only to prohibit any voter from vo-
ting for the county officers of county in
which he did ot.reside , 1t seems to me
obviously the latter. In the fret place, if
the trainers had intended to enact any
general provision, combining the right OF
voting to any particular place, it would
naturally have been inserted as distinct
on suffrage. But there is nothing of the
kind. No attempt was made to provide
anything on the suffice until they came
to consider very small class of the in
habitants of the State, the settlers on the
Indian lands. For their convenience the
section above referred to gave them the
right to vote at the nearest polls to their
residence, for State, United States, and
of Eat h4
might sometimes be In another coanty !;
ton having authorized the voter to vote
could have been claimed that he could
vote for county officers although voting il
a county in which he did not reside. Hence
the necessity for the proviso. But what
county officers did the trainers understand
would be voted for, in such a case.
if there was no restriction Did they
assume that the voter would vote for the
county officers of his own county, and
adopt the proviso for the purpose of pre-
venting it Obviously not. If they had
understood it to be practicable for him to
vote for the county officers of his own
county at the polls in another, they clearly
would not have prohibited it at al. The
him to vote for any officers at polls in
another county, would have led them TO
allow him to vote there also for the coun-
~ officers OF his own county, provided
they had understood it TO be practicable.
But they evidently assumed that it was
not practicable. Not because in the ma
ture of things it would be impossible to
provide a mode in which it might be &C.
lint
extraordinary provisions of law relating
expressly To such votes, it would be
wholly impracticable to vote at the gen.
eras pole IN one county for the county
officers of another. For this reason. the
prohibition of such voting was not the
idea in the minds of the trainers in enact,
ing the proviso. What then was it
Clearly to prevent him in such a case
from voting for the county officers of the
county where he voted, but in which he
did not reside. Without the proviso. this
right might have been claimed by him
This would have been obviously i'm
proper. 1t would be contrary to the
general policy and spirit of eur laws to
allow the residents of one county to have
voice in deciding who should be the
| county officers in another. To prevent it
was the sole idea and object of this pro.
viso. The words tout Of the county in
which he resides" refer to the officers to
be voted for, not to the act of voting. Its
| meaning was, not that no person should
ever be allowed to vote out of the county
In which be resided for the officers of that
county, but that no person should ever be
allowed to vote anywhere for the officers
OF county in which ne did not reside,
Such being its true and only meaning, it
furnishes no prohibition against the law
in question.
In section II, article IA, is the following
provision: The several elections pro,
vided for in this article, shall be conducted
according TO the existing laws of the
Territory: Prooided, that 40 elector shall
be entitled TO vote except in the town,
ward or precinct where he resides" This
was referred to upon the argument, but it
was hardly claimed to have any direct
application to the question. By its ex
press terms it applied only to tbs elections
provided for in the schedule, which were
the first elections to accomplish the or
ganization of the State Government. It
might just as well be said that it required
all elections under the Constitution to
be forever conducted according to the
then existing laws of the Territory, asro
say that it had the effect of making the
DrOylSO apDiicabin 70 auy elactiops ,,&bo-