Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1864-03-19


tion no where fixes the place Of holding
elections, and therefore the Legislature
may determine the place, and In so doing,
their action is subject to no control. If 1t
be admitted that the place of holding cleo
tions is not defined in the Constitution, It
does not necessarily follow that the Legis-
lature are endowed with the despotic power
claimed. II, for illustration, the Constitli-
tion confines the exercise of the right of
suffrage under 1t to the territorial limits of
the State, 1t will hardly be insisted that the
Legislature have the power to authorize
elections to be held without the State,
merely because the Constitution does not
designate the place of voting.
The case of Anderson v. Millikin. et al, 3
0. S. r., was suit brought by the plaintiff,
Anderson, man of mixed blood, the white
largely preponderating, but Of visible. adj
mixture, against the Judges of an election
for refusing his vote on the sole ground of
his having visible admixture of African
blood. Whilst the case was pending, the
Legislature passed law, which, If valid,
would have deprived Anderson of the right
to vote. In deciding that case the Supreme
Courts says:
"But surely, it cannot be claimed, and will
not, at this day, be claimed, by any intelli-
gent statesman or lawyer, that it is within
the scope of legislative power to give to the
court an authoritative construction of q
provision of the Constitution of the State
The simple question with us Is, In what
sense the word white was used In the Con-
stitution, and that sense, when ascertaincd,
we suppose to be obligatory both upon lis
and the general assembly Of the State"
In the case now under consideration, the
simple question is, does the Constitution au-
thorize the exercise of the rightof suffrage
without the State. In giving construction
to a constitutional provision, the same rules
apply as in constituting statute. The OBJ
ject is to ascertain the intention of those
who formed and adopted it; and this inten-
tion is to be ascertained in the same man
| ner.
1t may be promised, that the State of Ohio,
in her political capacity, is an independ-
ent, sovereign State. Her Constitution ex-
pressly declares that "all political power is
Inherent in the people. Government is in
stituted for their equal protection and BEN
eft, and they have right to alter, reform,
or abolish the same, whenever they may
deem it necessary" Language, more clear
| ly asserting absolute sovereignty and inde-
pendence could not have been selected
| This, being the declaration of the trainers
people of the State as their declaration, in
the adoption of the Constitution, must be
received as the platform on which our gov
ernmental fabric rests-absolute political
sovereignty and Independence. This must be
kept constantly in view In the investigation
of this case. No provision of the Constitu-
| tion can receive construction conflicting
with this fundamental principle, unless its
clear and unambiguous language render
such construction absolutely necessary.
Another inquiry of a rather preliminary
character arises out of the claim of extra
territorial State jurisdiction. What Is meant
to. be implied by the advocates of such a
theory is not precisely perceived. have
always supposed that the Constitution of
Ohio was formed, and herlaws, Under it en-
acted, tor the protection and government of
the people within her territorial limits. In
the Constitution of 1902 those limits are
clearly defined, and the PEOPLE of the terri
tory embraced within those limits formed a
government under the ''name of the State
of Ohio" There is not the slightest inti-
nation that they supposed the Constitution
they were framing was to operate in Penn
sylvania or in any other foreign State, or
country. u The Constitution Of 1851 does
| not, In terms, define the boundaries of the
| State, but il was adopted by the people of
the State Of Ohio, and thereby adopted
the territorial boundaries Of the State as
previously defined, and then well under
stood. The Constitution provides, that
criminals shall be tried in the county or dis
trict i'm which the crime Is charged to have
been committed, No matter how fragrant
the crime, or how convincing the proof of
guilt, no man can be punished In this State
for an act done without it. do not deem
it necessary to go into the inquiry as to the
extentto which States may, properly adopt
their own local laws to the promotion of
| free and unrestricted social and business
Intercourse between their own citizens and
those of other States, but shall limit myself
to such a view of the subject rs may be re-
quired, in order to a proper determination
of this case. iao
Bouvier, in his valuable Law Dictionary,
defines and explains Jurisdiction as:
k"A power constitutionally conferred up
on a judge or magistrate totale cognizance
Of and decide causes according to law and
to carry his sentence into executions; the
tract of land or district within which a
judge or magistrate has jurisdiction, is call
ed his territory. and his power in relation
to his territory is called his territorial juris-
diction. Every act of jurisdiction exercised
by Judge, without his territory, either by
pronouncing sentence or carrying it into
execution, Is null.'
In Wheaton's International Law, p. 113,
the atithor says:
"Every nation possesses and exercises ex-
elusive sovereignty and Jurisdiction
throughout the full extent of its territory.
1t follows from this principle, that the laws
of every State control, of right, all the in
habitants Of the territory, whether born
there or not, and th,tt they affect and regulate
all the acts done ,cithin its limits" g sfio9si
-. Every State possesses the power of de-
termining the state and capacity of all per-
sous therein" itYl- AElALCGl n
mo State can by its laws directly control
persons who. do not reside withinit, wheth-
er they be native born subjects or not."lQ
From these authorities 1t clearly appears
that the authority of this State cannot con-
trol or regulate the person or acts of citi7
zen without its territorial limits, and that
as soon as citizen passes beyond those linn
its. his person and acts become subject, alb
solutely, tothe jurisdiction of the State in
to which he may have entered, and mustbe
controlled thereby. -,
I But this absence Of extra -territorial iu-
risdiction in, a State, is mo where more dis
tinctly asserted than by the Supreme Court
Of this State, In the case Of Anderson VS..
Poindexter, et7dl, o.. S. r., 822.. Judge
Swan in delivering his opiniong saids ysdGS
[" II has been too often determined to ad-
NIT of cavil OF question that the laws of
each State have no extra-terrftori opera
tion, withinthe Jurisdiction of another ,ex-
cent stleh ns NAV he adOpted, bv her laws.