Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1864-04-15
THE CITY.
THE COURTS.
supreme Court of Ohio--Argument In
sthe Wayne County Contested
tt III Election Case.

WN Election Case.
In the Supreme Court OF Ohio yesterday
afternoon, Hon. Jacob Brinkerhoff, Chief
Justice; Hon. Josiah Scott, Hon. Rufus P.
Ranney, Hon. Horace Wilder, and Hon.
William White, Judges, presiding, the case
of Henry Lehman, plaintiff, rs. John X.
Mcbride, defendant in error to the Court of
Common Pleas of Wayne county, better
known as the Wayne county contested cleo
ton case, came up for hearing.
In this case Judge Sample decided the
soldiers voting law unconstitutional, by
which the Democratic candidates were
made the legal officers elected in that coun-
ty. The cases are entitled, Lehman us. Nc
Bride, candidates for Probate Judge;
Somers us. Graeter, candidates for Recorder;
Wright vs. Pinkerton, candidates for Coun-
ty Treasurer. The Republican candidates
appeal from the decision of the lower court
on error and the Democratic candidates
thus become the defendants. The first
named was the case argued, the others de-
pending upon the decision, as they involve
the same question of the constitutionality
of the law Of 1868. giving persons absent
from the State in the military service the
right to vote. Judge Bartley and John Nc
Sweeney, Esq, are the counsel for the de-
PENDANTS; Hon. M. Welker and G. Delano
are retained by the plaintiffs.
Both parties have submitted elaborate
briefs to the Court and the oral arguments
yesterday were therefore very brief. The
case was opened by Mr.. Welker, who spoke
for few minutes upon the points alluded to
in the briefs in connection with the consti-
tutionality of the law, and referred the court
to some additional authorities.
Mr.. McSweeney followed in a short but
brilliant argument in reply, bringing up
several points not heretofore touched in the
speeches on the subject. He argued that
the soldiers voting law was not only un-
constitutional, but that the election in con-
troversy held under it was void because the
provisions of the law were not complied
with, inasmuch as the poll books did not
properly designate the regiment by which
the votes were polled; and that hospital re-
turns of two and three votes were counted,
when the law explicitly requires that no
less number than twenty shall open poll.
Upon the question Of the extra-territorial
feature of the law, he quoted the pro-
vision of the constitution, which says
that an elector shall not be arrested for any
offense except treason, felony or breach of
the peace, while going to or from the polls;
how then can it be supposed that the franz
ers of the Constitution meant to extend the
right of suffrage to persons out of the juris-
diction of the State, where this guarantee
of protection could not be extended? He
cited the election laws describing nine diff
ferent penitentiary offenses for persons poll
ing fraudulent votes outside of the county,
township or wards in which they actually
reside; could it be maintained that the same
men thought it constitutional to vote out of
the State when it was made penitentiary
offense to vote out of the proper ward and
precinct? The same Legislature which
passed the law had at a previous session in
an elaborate and able report decided that
the Constitution debarred them from ex-
tending the right of suffrage to the soldiers
in the field, boon which they yearned to
grant. Mr.. McSweeney added number of
forcible arguments and Illustrations to show
the unconstitutionality Of the loose and
careless law, and its violations of establish
ed principles and decisions. His speech,
taken all in all, though brief, was most
eloquent and mastery argument.
He was followed on the same side by
Judge T. w. BARLEY, who recapitulated the
points of his profound and able speech
made before the Court some weeks ago and
published, and added several logical and
convincing arguments supported by au-
thorities, to maintain the position then
taken by him that the law was clearly un-
constitutional. Upon the conclusion OF
his brief argument the Court took recess
until o'clock, when Mr.. Delano closed the
case in an argument in favor of the law.
No important points were added to those
already made on that. side of the question
by himself and others.
The Court then took the case under con-
sideration, and it is expected will soon rem
der their final decision. All previous cases
OF the kind were decided by the Court up
on preliminary questions, but in this case it
is understood the decision will be upon the
constitutional question, and 1t will there
fore be looked for by the public with un-
usual interest.