Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1864-07-07


Of the legislature to enact such law.
Upon consideration, the judges certified
their unanimous opinion to be, that such
a law, In respect TO the election OF Gov
ernor, and other state officers, was not
warranted by their constitution,
The constitution of that state provides
that "the meetings of the electors for
the election of the several state officers,
by law annually TO be elected, and mem
beers of the General Assembly of this
state, shall be holden on the first Mon
day of April in each year." and also
that "at the meetings of the electors,
held i'm the several towns in this state
in April annually, after the election of
representatives, the electors present
shall be called upon to bring In their
written ballots for senator's, &c cry
similar language is used in the CO. stitu.
ton in reference to the election of
Governor, and various other state OIL
GERS.
In the opinion of ne Judges this Ian
guage of the con G,titution required that
the votes cast Tor Senators, Governor,
&C., should oe in electors meetings, held
in the several towns in the state,
The whole subject was again ably and
thoroughly discussed in the opinion of
the court, but we can only refer to the
report 80 Con. Report, sol.
At the June session, 1868, of the New
| Hampshire Legislature law was pro-
posed, authorizing every qualified voter
! of that state, in the military or naval
service of the United States, to appoint
an attorney to deposit his vote for him
at his place of residence, at any election
for state, county or town officers in that
state
BY a resolution OF the legislature, the
justices of the supreme judicial court of
that state were requested to give their
! opinion as to the constitutionality Of
the proposed law. The opinion was CIV
en- against the constitutionality of the
law, the court holding that by their con-
stitution the right Of voting must be
exercised by the voter in person, and
not be delegated to or performed by
an agent or attorney; and that by their
constitution the right must be exercised
by the voter within the state, at the
times and places pointed out by the con-
stitution 1t is needless to quote from
the New Hampshire constitution, as the
very form of the proposed law shows
that it was not claimed that the right
of voting could be exercised without
the state. The opinion of the Judges
may be found in Am Law Reg, Oct.
1868, TAO.
The remaining and latest decision up
on the subject that we have met with, is
from Iowa. Several cases came before
the court all involving the question of
the legality of votes cast without the
state, by citizens and voters of the state
in the military service Of the United
States, for certain state and county Off
GERS. The legislature of the state had
passed law authorizing such votes
cast without the state to be received
and counted in such elections, and the
question was as to the validity of the
law. The constitution of Iowa contains
this clause, Every white male citizen
of the United States, of the age of TWEEN
ty.one years, who shall have been a res
ident of this state six months next pre-
ceding the election, and Of the county in
aClbich he claims his gote Sirty days. shall be
entitled to vote at all elections, which
are now or may be authorized by law.
1t appears from the report of these
cases in the American Law Register,
March, 1864, page 276, that the question
was fully argued by counsel, and re
ceived the full and careful consideration
of the Court. The Court decided that
the law of the State in question was
constitutional that the article in the
constitution above quoted, only defines
the qualifications of voters, and does not
prescribe the place where the elective
franchise is to be exercised. The court, in
the opinion given by Wright, J. cite the
cases from Pennsylvania, Connecticut and
New Hampshire with appreciation, and
advance no principle of constitutional
law at variance with them. The argu-
ment of the court, by which the Ian
guage of the section above quoted is
made to apply to the general qualifca-
! ton of the voter, and not to the place OF
voting, is exceedingly subtle and inge-
NOUS and we are not prepared to say
it is not sound but it seems to us
quite difficult to make this and the
Pennsylvania case stand together, tho
the opinion attempts it. Construed by
the plain and natural rules of construc-
ton that should prevail in the in
terpretation of constitutions, "whee he
offers to Dote" and IN i0htch he claims his rOte"
as applied to the subject mean the same
thing 1t is not at all necessary for our
purpose to undertake the determination
of the respective soundness of the two
decisions, as neither is sufficiently like
our own case, to have any controlling
influence. 1t is quite apparent, however,
that the Iowa court entertained great
doubt as to the soundness of their own
construction as they go on to prove by
argument, and authority, that it is their
duty to uphold the law, unless 1t is
clearly, palpably and plainly inconsis-
tent with the provisions of the consti-
tuition. That this becomes their duty,
because the constitutionality of the law
had been pronounced in favor of by the
legislative and executive branches of the
government, acting in their official ca
pacities, and upon their official oaths.-
We are not prepared to question the
reasoning upon this point, but if we
could regard the question under our