Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1864-03-17

Court Of Common Pleas, Bel
mont County, Feb. Term, 1864.
JOHN A. WORK versus ROBERT +
III. COCHRAN

This cs GA comes before IN. co,,r, ~, an
.nneai regulsrlv nrosecm,ed bvt the n,,;n,;F
upder The i7tb ssct;on of ths oct ~ Anr;l
IL Is6a .,To enable Tho ouaj;f;ed voter. at \
this State. or of tho limited States. m eYsr.
else the rigbt IF suffrage a0 Ob;o fo,1sso
The parties we're candidates Mt the late
general election for the Office of Prosecuting
Attorney 4ori said conntvI of BeImont. iTbe
majority of votes cast within The county, at
the ususl places of res;dsnca of the yoters
was in favor of the plaintiff. but tho major.
was in favor of the defendant Jfnon ad'
ding together tbe yotcs a. ~ w;tb;p r. IN conu.
tv and the votes cast beyond the l;m;ts of
the State, under the above mentioned act. il |
was ascertained that there was a moior;tv
for the defendant.
O. Jsvauev and n. r. Chambers. r.Plsin,ia
b S. aud d. D. +. Cowsn, ior Defendah,
Okey, j. There is no allegation in the
notice that the elections outside ofthe State
were not fairly held and no other ground of
contest is alleged than that the act is un-
constitutional in 40 far as it authorizes per.
sons to vote outside of the State. That
question carefully considered when this
case was presented, in another form. at the
! last term, and further reflection upon it has
only confirmed me in the opinion then ad-
vanced, and afterwards made public; that
is, that the act, fairly construed, appiies to
elections held beyopd our territorial limits as
we'll as to elections within the State. and
that while the constitution of 1902 prescri.
bed the Qualification of voters and the Dloce
of voting so far that no one could be per
mitted to vote bevond the limits Of the
county. the present constitution nrescribes
the onalifcatiot of voters alone
The question is not whether, the law is
lust and expedient. but whether it is valid.
not whether the power to legislate has been
abused or improperly exercised. but vbeth.
er it exists The elections upder the act
NAV not have been in all respects fair:
frauds NAV be pernetrated under II hereaf
ter: but that does not affect tho validity Of
the law. A mob ipterfered with the ballot
box, DESTROYED the tallv-sbeets. and commit
ted other wrongs Mt the nolls in Cinc;nnat;
n few wears auo. but II was not sunnosed h,
any one, that this affected onr elention law
in anv way Nor was il believed that he
cause of similar outropes in Raltimore. Lou
isville, st. Louis and Nav Orleans m,
election laws at those places became inyal
q id. Fraud at an election NAV be a very poot
e ground for setting asije noll.book or !,
an extreme case. for repeaIiny an electio,
law: but il can never 90 to the question O
| IaulgIatlya IL Z
=, he sure-nnd II is not witbout force-tho
= it is impossible to prove the fraud, for onl
y twenty davs are allowed for the contest, bu
e This is a matter which NAV be remedied b
8 tho General Assembly.
:. The objection tbat,the statute il invali
because the General Assembly has not th
d mower 70 enact a law that shall have fore
J. beyopd the limits of the State has bee
10 much relied On. and il Is certa;nIv n gener,
l. principle that the laws of a country do nc
n extend beyond its territorial limits B,
m this ia NOT. in anv inst sense. an extra terr
l. torial law like law. for instance. which
=" designed to Affect the title to real pronert
situated in another State: for this law on
a rates upon and is to be executed by the ci
:, liens OF Ohio alone; it does not require I'll
" comfy of another State in order that it ma
have effect; it does not call for any action
foreign tribunals or officers, nor can it col
flict with the jurisdiction, laws or policy
al any other State; it does not compel ar
I'd person to vote or act as the officer Of Q
election; its only object is to enable q lari
and meritorious class of persons to ava
themselves of constitutional right; nor
U.s. the law without vindicatory clause, for al
OF fraud or illegal action OF officers or voters
election is punished by the exclusion Of Il
Is llieEai vi iIauuuIenI 'otcS UT poliUoohS
DC Besides, If the officers OF such election
to another State knowingly forward to tn
e. State any fraudulent poll-boo&, this wou
ny be an offence against which the Gener
le Assembly OF Ohio might we'll provide. g
G. person abroad may by the employment
us we'll OF conscious as of an uncoDscio
oil agent render himself amenable to the Ia
of OF England when he comes within the j
ell rlsd'ctlon OF our courts. " Lont Cnmpbe
rs, Q D. IN Reg .. Gtnrett, % Eng, Lato
On Eq Oil; ! bishops Or. La,o, sec 579. B
lst do not desire to rc-cxamine the questio
in involved, except AS to the arguments tn
an were not fully considered in the opinion
in ferred to-
ng |. 1t is said that the act isin conflict wi
nd that clause of Art. 2, sec. l6, of the ca
les stitusion of Ohio, which provides that .
te, law shall be revived or amended unless t
new act contain the entire act revived,
of the section or sections amended, and I
his section or sections so amended shall be
ill psaled." True, the legislature did not
dy gard that provision in enacsinu this law
,o- But
n II.