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

CiplCb Vi SOuilu TtdSOfl, UllCTc ~ uO uhL'tIu
in adopting the conclusion, that whatever
iother meaning may be attached, by its ad-
v0cates, 10 this, claimed, extra-territoral
jurisdiction of State, 1t cannot have the
effect to protect the citizen, when without
this State, In the enjoyment of any right,
to control or regulate his actions or person,
nor to redress any injury he may sustain
from being controlled in, or deprived of,
the enjoyment of such right. ,,.
AS soon as an elector passes the bounds
of Ohio, lie enters the territory of some
other power, and over which territory that
power possesses and exercises exclusive
sovereignty and Jurisdiction" That juris-
diction "affects and regulates all acts done"
by him, "witllin its limits" Hence, If he
exercise the right of an elector, he must do
so, subject TO this foreign jurisdiction and be-
y0nd the control Of the la,os and authority Of
the Stale of Ohio. 1t cannot be questioned,
but any foreign State, (and for the purpose
of this discussion every other State Is for
eign,) may, at its election, prohibit the
electors Of this State from holding elections
within its limits. Its Jurisdiction over its
own territory, being exclusive, necessarily
excludes all other authority Whatever
Could Kentucky insist on right in her
citizens to hold elections in Ohio? 1t will
not be pretended.
If, then, the Constitution confers the right
to hold elections without the State, the right
must be exercised under the control of some
foreign jurisdiction and not under control
of the authority of this State. If such for
eign power elect to permit an election to be
held, it may be done. If it elect to prohibit
1t, this State has no right or authority to
control such foreign power in making its
election. To assume that the trainers of the
| Constitution intended to authorize the ex-
Of oil fls,
State, would be to impute to them the eX
treme folly of authorizing the exercise of
the highestattribut of political sovereignty
and independence, in subordination to, and
under the control of, the exclusive jurisdic-
| tion of q foreign State. If this right be
conferred, 1t must be for the purpose of en-
| abling those to whom it may extend, by
| their votes to influence the result of cleo
tions within the State. This case shows
that such may be the result of foreign
vote. Such result must have been contem-
plated by the trainers of the Constitution,
in comforting such right. If then, the re-
suit of an election in Ohio depends upon a
vote to be polled without the State, the poll
| ing of that vote depends upon the election
of the State or Government having juris-
| diction over the persons and acts OF the
| electors who are to poll such vote. If that
| foreign State elect to permit such vote to be
| pOlled, one set of men are chosen to admin
| lister the government of Ohio; If it elect to
| prohibit such vote, the administration pass
es into other and different hands. In such
case, whose election gives rulers to Ohio?-
| The answer is, that of foreign State.
| But, not only is the right to vote depen-
| dent upon the election of a foreign power,
| but the enjoyment of the privileges neces-
| sary to qualify the elector for the proper eX-
ercise of that right, are subject to the same
control. The Constitution guarantees to the
elector within the State, not only the unre-
stricted right to vote, under its authority.
at, all elections; but, also, such auxiliary
| rights, as were deemed essential, to enable
him intelligently and properly to exercise
| that right. Most prominent among them,
is the protection of the right of free speech,
| free press and peaceable assemblies. These
are essential. Without their enjoyment as
ariqht,popular elections become contempt
| ible mockerys So, evidently, thought the
trainers of our Constitution. But, If this
| important right be intended to be exercised
without the State, the elector is deprived of
the protection of these constitutional guar
antees. The moment he leaves this State he
issubjected to foreign jurisdictieni In these.
| as well as all other, respects. Peaceable as
| semblies of such electors in foreign State,
may be prohibited; the freedom of speech
and the press entirely or partially restrain
ed; or, what would be still more irreconcil-
able with the intelligent and proper exer-
| else of this important right, its authority
may be arrayed in favor of particular
| party or theory, and whilst it may tolerate
and even encourage licentious license, in
advocating the cause of that party or theory,
| 1t may prohibit the publication Of whatever
may, In its opinion, tend to sustain the in
terest or recommend to popular favor, the
opposing party or theory. If the enjoyment
| of these rights was, by the trainers of our
| Constitution, deemed essential to the proper
exercise of the right of suffrage within the
State, can il reasonably be inferred that they
| intended to extend this exercise to foreign
lands, where the guarantees of these auxil-
larry rights can have no operation?
| But counsel for contestee endeavor to
draw distinction between subjection to
foreign civil jurisdiction, and being in the
military service. That service requircs sub
| lection to military authority. That author
| ity controls all who come within its juris-
| diction. That jurisdiction Is as clearly for
eign as that of Pennsylvania or any other
| State. Over it the government of the State
| of Ohio can exercise no control; and surely.
| 1t will not be insisted, that the authority of
amilitary commander cannot as effectually
control those subject to his command, as
can the civil authorities those subject to
their jurisdiction. From the nature of mil
itary service, every commander must have
exclusive control within the lines of his
camp. He ought to have but one object in
view-the promotion of the good of the
service. This requires of him the adoption
| of such measures as will secure the great
est efficiency of the force entrusted to his
command; and this, again, requires that he
should have the power of eXacting obedi-
ence of all who are under his authority. 1t
| Is even necessary that his will be
| received as the will of the whole body
he being the head, aud those under his
command the members, subject to the di-'
rection and control of their common
head. ~ Can itbe questioned that military
commander may prevent political elections
being held within his campp or that he may
prevent those under his command from alb
senting themselves from duty to attend
elections beyond its limits? or that he may
exclude from his camp political discussions,
or the circulation of political publications?
or that he may prevent political assemblages
within his lines? And more than all these,
who, with the light of the present day can
doubt, that military commander may ex-
ercise the power Of permitting, within his
camp, unbridled and even licentious advo-
cacy,, both by speech and the press, of one
political party. and theory, although that
advocacy may assume the clearly defined
form of malignantand vituperative defania-