Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1863-04-02

1uoiiLiDS AUS solulSIS W SoeS OuGotUS OF lis
limits, unconstitutional. But the decision
Is based upon an express provision of
their constitution requiring residence By
the voter sin the election district where
he offers to vote ten days Immediately
preceding such election" &c. Their law
did not organize any " election districtsn
outside of the State, and for that reason
the court held it void. Whether thew
could have done that or not, the court did
not attempt to determine. We have no
such clause IN our constitution, and the
decision is therefore inapplicable here.s
l conclude therefore, that there is moth
ing in the constitution which amounts to
a prohibition of this law.
But the counsel for the relator contends
that if it is possible for the legislature to
authorize any elector to cast bis 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 were absent
from the state might vote. This conelu-
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 g disfranchisment Of such
electors. But this is clearly untenable.
So long as electors are at liberty to
vote at their places of residence, they
cannot be said to be DISTINGUISHED,
because the legislature does not provide
that they may vote elsewhere. And if the
legislature does see fit to provide upon
special reasons that a certain class may
vote elseH here, those not belonging to
that class have no ground of complaint
They may still exercise the ight at home
If they choose to stay. 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 De
exercised, and no elector can claim to be
deprived of it because not allowed to ex
ercise it at the same place where some
others are allowed to do so.
But the counsel for 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 for an offence commit
ted outside, 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 a 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, so That the court can say, upon
looking at the whole statute, that the leg
lslature 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-
sent 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, it
seems to be we'll established that every
nation has the right to punish its own cit
liens for violations of its laws wherever
committed. This right is based upon the
duty of 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 when
he returns within its limits Story's Con
fict of Laws, SCI, $40. Wheat. Int.
Law, PIP. 1872, 169, 40. This doctrine is
thus stated in The People as. Tyler 7
Mich. 221, by Christianoy, j.: But the
general principle that the laws of a
country cannot render an act criminal
"when committed beyond its limits, is
"subject to some qualifications or exec pit.
ions. Thus every sovereignty has the
fright, subject to certain restrictions, to
"protect itself from, and to punish as
crimes, certain acts which are peculiarly
injurious to its rights or interests, or
those of its citizens, a0herever commit.
"ted;; at least if committed by citizen
cor subject of such sovereignty.
But though Grim es in gen eral 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 to
enumerate ally the citizen may commit
"treason by acts Or combinations abroad
"the commerce of nation may be iniur-
SEED, or its pacific relations with other
governments endangered, by the
criminal 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 a Cit
zen, with this qualification, that be be
afterwards found within the territory or
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
"ed there without the consent of the
slater"
In Adanas vs.. The People 1st Com. 17S,
Judge Bronson recognized the rule as fol-
lows: ut 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
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 State"
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
there adhere to It's enemies, and wage war
against his country, and afterwards return
to 1t, and laugh to scorn its power Ct
punishment because the offence was com
mitted outside of it, the power of every
nation to defend itself against treachery
would be seriously impaired. The neces-
sity of it is also quite apparent with re-
spect to many other offences. As, for ex-
ample, where state sends its agents