The weekly Ottumwa courier., 1863-05-14
The Legislature may allow that right to

be exercised in person only, and only al
the local polls, or they may allow it to be
done by proxy instead of in person. And
so may they allow the polls to be taken to
the voter instead Of requiring him to come
to the polls. This, too, in another State, as
well as at home. This law confers no new
right. Itmerely provides for the better ex.
ercise ofan existing one. Therefore it fol.
lows that the vote is valid If the voter was
otherwise a qualified elector, whether the
power to pass the law existed in the Legis.
lature or not. The main point is, was the
voter legally qualified? Tfhe was, then no
harm has been done. Non constat, but the
voter would have come home and voted but
for this law. On this point refer to what
our misguided opponents would, under diff
ferent circumstances, deem very high au.
thority. The Supreme Court of Louisiana,
in Andrews os Saucier, hold in substance,
that the Legislature cannot, by encompass.
ing the right to vote, with unconstitutional
provisions, make the votes of electors null
and void. That fthe votes Of the. citizens
are deposited, the intent and design of the
election are accomplished. That the result
of elections should not be dependent on
some unconstitutional provision of the DO.
lice part Of an election law. That if the
voters go forward and vote under defective
law, those who are candidates ought to be
the last to complain when the result has
been effected neither by the unconstitution
ality of the law, nor by fraud. error, or COL
lusion. So, allowing the law to be uncon-
stitutional, permitting the soldiers to vote
in the field, and in other States, but which
no one really believes, yet if not voted hut
by legal voters, it is valid and fair forth re-
suit would have been the same, if they had
voted at home. If any voted who were not
qualified, the objection, should be put on
that ground as is holden in Griffin ps. Wall
by the Supreme Court Of Alabama, another
one of, the rebel States. It's hoped that
these authorities may prove satisfactory to
those who turn their faces towards the
South as the Mussleman does to the east,
when they say their prayers. ~
| In taking the vote abroad we assert no
new principle. We take depostions abroad
and they ale valid in our courts. In so do
ing in either case, we violate no law of the
other State. Though Of no force there, It is,
by our law, of full force here. 1t satisfies
our statute and our tribunals.
JudgesStorny lays down the rule to be,
in Section IO6 and $40 ofhis conflict of laws
that every State will Judge for itself how far
it will adopt or reject acts done by its, own
citizens in another State or country; and
that so far as rights, duties and acts, occur
red, discharged or done, under law OF ono
State in another State, the rule is. that
when they come under the cognizance Of
their own State for enforcement or protec-
Etion, they may be sustained; if in conformi.
Ety to the law under which they occurred.
We have commissioners of emigration in
| other States, acting under our laws and
paid by our government, or have had Are
their acts void !? We have commissioners OF
Iowa, In other States, to take and certify
deeds and other instruments of writing for
use in Iowa. Are their acts void The
United States have consuls in foreign ports.
They administer oaths, and exercise certain
judicial powers, in matters concerning our
own citizens abroad Are their acts void !?
As to the vote for members of Congress.
our State Constitution shas nothing to do
with it. The Constitution of the United
States expressly allows the legislatures Ct
the States to fix the times, places and man.
uer OF voting for members of the House of
Representatives. Shall the Congress
ional vote be valid and the other invalid p
we have recent law authorizing Majors in
the army, abroad, to take depostions to be
read in evidence in our courts. Is this act
unconstitutional? There are no complaints
oft; yet the cases are parallel except that
the depositions may not prevent some Sc
cessionist from getting into Office. In JAN
uary 1853 an act Of Congress was passed
allowing the oath of office to be administer
ed to the Vice President elect, Mr.. King,
on the Island of Cuba, where he then was
for, his health. Was that act unconstitu
tional? 1t was passed by Democratic
Congress, and signed by Democratic Pres.
ident. Under it the oath was administered
to that great and good man--not in the har
Dor at Havana upon our man of war, as it
might have been, IN our own actual juris-
diction. But high up on dry land-upon
the soil,and within the exclusive iuriadiction
of Spain. Was it invalid? Was Mr..
King not Vice President in law, as we'll as
in fact? Not even the rancor Of party
strife ever questioned it. Why then this
clamor now ?With some it is the novelty Of
the thing as applied to elections but with
| others-iil feeling toward the government
on account of loss of power. tits the rule
or ruin pri.lciple, the inordnate love of off.
ce and party that causes this great right to
be denied for the first time now, when the
very existence of our government is involv-
ed. Such are the influences that have
caused this shameful effort of certain self
constituted leaders of'a once pure and pa.
triotic party, to disfranchise the defenders
of our liberty and to deprive the State of
their counsel at the polls.
| HFb