Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1864-03-19
COLUMBUS, OHIO, SATURDAY MORNING, MARCH 49, 1854

cOVeTeu, OF UHe dlIeTtu CITcltiHbbdllceb Oi Tile
people seemed to require, until l84l, when
theIIegislature passed the act still In force
''to preserve the purity of elections" On
inspection, it appears that nine sections of
this law close by denouncing imprisonment
in the penitentiary as the penalty incurred
by the commission of the various acts there
I'm defined, calculated to interfere with the
full, honest and impartial expression of the
popular will through the ballot-box. In adj
dition to these severe penalties that law de-
clares. that any person convicted and SEN
fenced, under any one of these provisions,
shall be forever incapable of voting or hold
ing Office, unless pardoned. 1t would seem
that, in the opinion of that Legislature, the
preservation of the purity of elections was
of sufficient Importance and difficulty to
call upon them for the exhaustion of their
legislative power to accomplish that end.
This law was enacted ten years before the
adoption of the Constitution in 1851, and
was then IN force The delegates who formed
that Constitution were all elected under
the protection Of its penal sanctions. When
the elector went to the polls, at that elec-
tion, his rights under the Constitution, as
an elector, were protected by these same
sanctions. Nor Is there the least reason to
believe, that these severe enactments were
not fully sustained by the public sentiment
of that day. On the contrary, the fact that
that law still remains in force, intensified in
some of its provisions by the enactment of
amendments under the enlarged power con-
ferred on the legislature by the present
| Constitution, is conclusive evidence that the
law in all its severity was deemed necessary
to accomplish the object contemplated by
the legislature. In view of these facts, j
ask not if it can be probable, but can it be
possible, that convention representing
| laII AL
| themselves composing q part of that peo-
pie, adopted Constitution intended to
withdraw the exercise of this right-so
carefully guarded at home from all these
restraints-and expose it, without any
guards or protection whatever, to the much
| greater perils OLA foreign land? or. that
such people should, in their adoption of
the Constitution so framed and submitted
to them, have been governed by such a sui
cidal intent? | have never yet heard di-
rect affirmative answer to this intcrrogatory.
But, on comparing the provisions of the
Constitution of 1851, which defines the right
of suffrage, with the corresponding prOvi
sion in the Constitution of 1902, it is found
that change is made in the language used
in defining the qualifications of electors,
and from this change an inference is at
tempted to be drawn of an intent sufficient
| ly liberal to warrant the counting of the
vote polled without the State. 1t is,
believe, conceded, that under the Consti-
tuition of 1902 this vote could not have been
sustained.
The first section, fourth article of the Con-
stitution of 1902, reads as follows:
"In all elections, all white male inhabit-
ants above the age of twenty-one years,
having resided in the State one year next
preceding the election, and who have paid,
or are charged with State or county tax,
shall enjoy the right of an elector; but no
person shall be entitled to vote, except in
the county or district in which he shall
actually reside at the time of election"
The corresponding provision of the Con-
stitution OF 1851, Article 8, section l, is as
follows: .r. al.f r... ........I...,
Every white male citizen of the United
States of the age of twenty-one years, who
shall have been a resident of the State one
year next preceding the election, and of the
county, township or ward in which he. re-
sides such time as may be provided by law,
shall have the qualifications of an elector,
and be entitled to vote at all elections"
1t will be seen, on comparison, that the
phraseology of these provisions is so differ
eut that it is evident the latter was not in
tended to be modified transcript of the
former, but an original provisions. li
The difference between these two provis-
ions, in so far as it affects the question now
under consideration, is: H7 ~ l....a
FIRST The Constitution OF 1902 requires
the elector to actually reside in the county,
&C.. which he votes, at the time of election,
whilst the Constitution of 1851 requires
residence such time as may be provided by
law, before the day of election; and, iaI
SECOND, The Constitution of 1902 provides
that the elector shall not be entitled to vote,
except in the county, &C., in which he shall
so actually reside; whilst the Constitution
of 1851 contains no such express provision.
1t Is evident that in one respect at least,
the change was intended to restrict the
right of suffrage and more securely to
guard that right from abuse. Under the
Constitution of 1902 an actual residence only
in the county was required. A citizen COM
ing from distant county within the State
into any other county on the day of the
election had a right to vote. All that
could be inquired into was his actual
residence. 1t may readily be presumed that
such provision was liable to abuse. Men,
otherwise qualified as electors, had but to
take up a temporary residence in any coun-
| ty. If it was actual, no matter how brief,
| he was entitled to vote. This kind of inn
position had been much complained of, and
| to remove this evil was at least one OBJ ect
the trainers of the Constitution had in view
in making the change, and thereby author
izing the Legislature by law, to require
previous residence of such duration as they
should deem necessary to prevent the con-
tinuance of the abuse complained Of .N.E
That this was a prominent object in maxi
ing this change is apparent not only from
a comparison of the two provisions, but al
so from the debate of the convention by
whom the change was made. This section
being under consideration it was moved by
a member to so amend it as to require an
actual residence only, the same as the Con-
stitution of 1902. This led to some debate
in which the advocates of the respective
propositions gave their reasons for their
preference for the one or the other. On the
one hand, the inconvenience and even in
justice of requiring o voterto reside forany
length of time in a county, &C., before be-
ing entitled to vote, was earnestly urged
upon the attention of the convention. On
the other, the fact thatabuses had been prac-
ticed by men being brought into particular
localities without any fixed residence, for
the purpose of controlling the elections in
those localities, was with equal earnestness
insisted on as an evil requiring the exercise
Of the remedial power. which the conven-
tion alone possessed. This point was made
very distinctly by Mr.. Case, of Licking
county. Heisreported to have said:
"He was alresident of.a town through
which the Ohio Canal passes. Every year
the mere transient homeless, hands of canal
n ~ u IL -