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

ID in the American Law Register for Jan
uary, 1868, the Supreme Court Of Penn
sylvaaia held ~ law of%shat State au-
thorixing its soil lers to vols outside of it's
limits, unconstit donal. Hut the decision
% hA1ed sapon IN Sxfre9 pp6viaion .kof. ]
theiH COM itutioN requirind'a l5sidoaolby 4
the xoter = in i elecnons district w heres
he @1ferssto vol ten DAYS immel1iatelys1
pred din9such <ectidn," 10. TIER law Z
did 6ot oSganixH Any q election districts "a
outsiaezof the State, and FOR that reason
the court held it vsid. Whether they
could hSve done that or not, the court did
Dot=attsmp4~Aos>s3ese isaver4oa
euch clause in our constipation, and the
decision istherefcceinapplicsble hsrest *
conclude therefore, that there is moth
ing in the constitution which amounts to
q prohibition of this law.
But the counsel for the relator .coptends.
fhhf H il ii possibleSfof sthe legislature to
authorize any elector to cast his ballot out
of the state, then this law is void because
it is confined to soldiers, and does not pro
vide that all electors who we're absent
from the state nfgAss spte. This conclu-
sion was based upon the assumption that
not to provide that they might vote out
of the state if it could possibly be done,
amounted to disfranchisment of such
electors. But this is clearly untenabae.
So long as electors are at liberty to
vote at their places of residence, they
csnnet be- sstd 80 be eiefranchisod,
because the legislaaurs does not provide
that they may vote elsewhere. And if the
legislature does see ct to provide upon
special reasons that certain class may
vote elsen here, Lhose- not belonging to-
that class have no. ground of complaint.
They may stilf exercise the right at home
if they choose to stay.o The right of suf-
frage is given by the constitution, and the
elector cannot be deprived of it.. But the
legislature may provide where it shall be
exercised, and no elector can claim to be
deprived Of it because not allowed to ex
ercise it at the stme place whore some
others arc allowed to do SO. IS 5s5sstz
But the counsel Tor the relator raises
another objection to the law. He claims
that although the legislature may have the
power to authorize the votes to be given
outside of the State, still it has no power
to punish any one Cor an offence commit
ted outs, &c, and therefore the seventeenth
section, which provides for the punish
ment of persons voting illegally at such
elections, must fail. And he then claims
that the law falls within principle which
has been frequently recognized by this
court, that where an act is passed contain
ing some provisions which might be valid,
and others which are void and those
which are void were designed as
compensation for or qualifications of the
others, 80 that the court can say,
looking at the whole statute, that the leg
islature would not have passed the valid
parts except upon the supposition that
the void parts could be enforced also, the
whole act must fail. If it could be held
that the provision for the punishment OF
illegal voting was invalid, it would pre-
seLt very serious question whether this
principle was not applicable to this law.
But we are not prepared to say that that
provision is invalid. On the c, ntrary, 1t
seems to be well established that every
nation has the right to punish it, own cit
izeus for violations of its laws wherever
committed. This right is based upon the
duty IF allegiance. And it does not rest
upon the assumption that one state can
extend its laws into another, SO as to
make them directly operative there, or
impose any obligation on such other state
TO observe them or give any effect to
them, but merely that they may be person.
ally binding upon the citizen of the state
which enacts them, and justify his punish,
ment for their violation by such state wher
he returns within its limits Story's Con
f1ict of Laws, 81, S $40. Wheat. Int
Law, PIP. 1872, 1859, ITO. This doctrine is
thus stated in The People Us. Tyler Z
Mich. 221, by Christiancy, j.: "Bnt the
general principle that the laws of 6
"country cannot render an act criminal
"when committed beyond its limits, i.
"subject to some qualifications or except
ions. Thus every sovereignty has the
fright, subject to certain restrictions, te
protect itself from, and to punish al
"crimes, certain acts which are peculiarly
"injurious to its rights or interests, OF
those of its citizens, sohereuer commit
"ted; :; at least If committed by citizen
cor subject of such sovereignty.
But though Grim es in general thus be
leone injurious to the sovereignty only
"when committed within its territories
"there are exceptional cases, standing
upon peculiar grounds, as already init
" mated. Thus (without attempting tc
enumerate ally the citizen may commit
"treason by acts or combinations abroad
"the commerce OF nation may be mi r-
"ed, or its pacific relations with other
governments endangered, ny the
"crlminal conduct of the crews or pas
"sengers of its ships in foreign ports. In
such cases the offender may be punished
"by the government of which he is q cit.
"zen. with this qualification, that be be
afterwards found within the territory oI
jurisdiction of the latter, or be brought
"there without violation of the rights
"of the sovereignty within which the ACT
was committed, for he cannot be arrest
led there without the consent of the
"latter."
In adams vs.. The People LIST Com. ITS
Judge Bronson recognized the rule as fol-
lows: +" 1t does not occur to me that
there are more than two cases where
the question of allegiance can have any
thing to do with criminal prosecution
First, where the accused is charged with
a breach of the duty of allegiance, as in
cases OF treason; and second, where the
government proposes to punish offences
committed by its own citizens beyond the
territorial limits of the Sta ts.
The absolute necessity of this power
with respect, at least to the crime Of trea-
son, seems very clear. If citizen could
pass beyond the limits of his country, and