Mineral Point weekly tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1859-1868, 1863-04-01
Tho Act Enabling Soldiers to Vote,
AA' Constitutional
rho.. who Vote are Liable to do
Military Duty.
opants e Judge Pline, Dixon and Col.
Concutxing.


rhAs..s. of w,seoSSsn e. re-. Josz,z A. CaA.DIz.
36a:nss Wl1asR g MALE Il
At the special session of the Legislature
n 1862, law was passed allowing the
qualified electors of this State, who should
- A0tinGx a .Xoluntaer soldiers II the ser=
vi0e Of the United States, to vote at the
zeneral fall elections. The law provided
10 detail the mode in which such votes
should be taken, returned and canvassed.
md that they might be given at whatever
the die, whether within. OF. without this
State.
At the election last fall, the relator re.
,eived majority of the votes cast in Dane
cou ~ xh6 sUdioe of Sheriff, exclusive
of @he- votes of soldiers; but the latter
,h6n6 tAo result, and if properly count
I'd, elected the respondent, who received
the certificate and entered upon the duties
Of the Office. This is proceeding by quo
,ol r5ontS, by which lthe .elator eeeks to
o11ajn possession of the Office, and the
only question presented, is as to the valid
ity of theElavs authorizing the soldiers to
vote If. that was valid, the relat0r rcdst
fan; II void, he must succeed.
He claims it to be unconstitutional. .yut
WIN VIC SAcORSAOh Vi OAO C10uS6 w dlCu
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 laft by the constitution to be regulated
by law. But even assuming this, the coun-
sel for the relator still contends that an
implied prohibition should be derived from
the nature and scope of the constitution
itself AID the general principle that the
constellation and laws of q country can
have no force beyond its territorial limits
This 10 undoubtedly q well established
general principle, applicable to al govern
meatss 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
mast fail. Thus, if the legislature of this
Stste should pass s law imposing duties
upon the citizens Of Illinois, to be per-
formed In Illinois, it would be void And
it would be 80, 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 De outside of the
scope of the legislative power of this state.
It might be said to bs:unconstitutional, al
though not prohibited, for the reason that
the constitution delegated to the legisla-
sure 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-
or, was unconstitutional, though not pro-
hibited, because such an act was not with
in the scope of the legislative power
But Ibis principle has certain well de-
find and universally recognized qualifca-
tons. And although it is true as 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 regulation 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 ev-
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-
ecuted il other states, and when SO execu-
ted gives to them within its limits the
effect of working a legal transfer of the
title. And to facilitate this object it is
usual for each state to authorize the APP
pointment in other states of commission,
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, whatev-
er effect it pleases within its own borders.
We have euch lsw in chapter So of the
Revised Statutes, and probably there is no
state in this country which has not SIM
liar one. .-l-.
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 il, and in what
manner dispositions may be taken in other
states and countries to be used as evidence
its courts. This class of legislation has
been universally recognized as vafi5 Tor
the reason that although it authorizes sets
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-
fairs of the state over which it has ac-
kncwledged Jurisdiction, and have no ten
dency to interfere with the sovereignty of
the other states in which they may be pei
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
|. has equal authority to provide Che mode
in which the elector shall cast his ballot
1t provides that he may do it in another
state. If 30 done, why is the act NOT
equally valid with the other2 | can See
no distinction in principle between item
30 far as relates to the power of the state
to anthosize them to be done outside of i,s
territorial limits. Or rather if there Is
any distinction it is ia favor of the law
authorizing the ballot, for that is matter