Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1863-10-29
From the Daily Of Oct. go.
SHOULD rnr soLprrns vorr.-G


John w. Phelps of Brattleboro has writ
ten a letter 10 the Phoenix, upon the sub
ject of soldiers voting. II comes to us
from Montpelier, printed upon slip by
tself, and, we infer, has been circulated iui
this form among the members Of the Leg
islature. The letter is entitled TO atten-
ton on account Of the source from which
il comes, and We therefore copy 1t into
our columns. In doing this, however, we
must be permitted TO say that the letter
does not seem to us conclusive upon the
subject. Gen. Phelps, as We understand
his letter, argues that it is subversive of
discipline to permit soldiers to vote for
their officers, aud concludes that the right
of suffrage should be denied them en-
tirely or, because voting for their
field and general officers would be
injurious to the discipline of the
soldiers, the same demorahzing effect
would follow their voting for the
civil officers of the State. We see
no parallel between the two cases. In
one case, they are voting for the military
officers under whom they are to serve,
and to whom they are bound to yield d.
rect and implicit obedience. A question
of military discipline may arise here this
point it is not necessary for us TO argue.
In the other case they are only exercising
the right of suffrage which they posses
sed as citizens before entering the army
IN voting for the civil officers they then
voted for, and with whom they have no
more direct connection, as soldiers, than
they previously had as civilians ;-in one
case, in other words, they are voting for
their own military commanders in the
other, for the civil rulers of state, who
have no immediate personal relation TO
them as soldiers. We do not see tnat
this question of discipline,--of the main
tenance of that implicit obedience due
from subordinates to their military supe-
riors,-arises IN the latter case so as to
demand serious attention.
Il we remember Alright, one main rea-
son why "a bill TO allow our soldiers to
vote was not passed last year, was a
consideration of economy, taken la con-
nection, probably, with the fact that even
without the soldiers vote, there is no
question as to the result OF any Vermont
election. A small expense would attend
the taking OF the soldiers vote, but
whether this consideration alone should be
allowed TO dlsfranchise our brave citizens
who volunteer to risk their lives in de-
fence of our rights, is question we leave
to our present Legislators to determine :.
1t does not seem difficult one to us.
A serious question as to the coaStita-
tionatity of law allowing soldiers to
vote has arisen IN some States. An OBJ
lection on this ground has been sustained
under some constitutions. and everruled
under others. What aspect this question
may take under the constitution of YER
mont,we do not assume now to say. The
fact thai Gov. Smith made no allusion
to any constitutional obstacle to the
measure which he so earnestly advocated
in his message, of allowing the Vermont
soldiers to vote, would Indicate that he, at
least, apprehended no difficulty on that
score. This will be question or the le-
gal members of the Legislature to consid-
er, and if it should appear that the Con-
stituticn stands in the way of the soldiers
voting out Of the State, the Constitution
OF course must be sustained, however
strong may be our wishes 10 grant to our
brave defenders voice in the State cleo
tions.