The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, 1865-02-01

able mind when pointed out, II the former
be meant, no man can tell what the Constl-
tuition is from what is written. and we
might as we'll have no written constitution;
If the latter. then il is not 4 clear case Of
direct conflict. And he further says: (and
as think true in the case before US no
man can take the law in one hand and Con-
stituuon in the other and say that their
terms clash. Whether the law conflicts
with the spig-H and meaning OF the Con-
StitutiOn. depends on what lrs declare them
10 be; and Il we set up differences which are
inconsistent with the law. lst IL D. SAID
that the lGic conflicts rri JUDICIAL f1Rpficd-
ton, icrlrsl from ne Constitution. rather
than nth The Instrument uSslf. And Judge
Gibson. in Commonwealth y. Clark. says:
" 4 constitution is not 10 receive techni-
cal construction, Ike a common law instrr-
ment or statute. II Is 10 De Interpreted so
as 10 carry out the general principles Of the
government. not 70 defeat them. and 10 that
end. is commands as 10 the time aud
manner ofperorming an act are 10 be con-
sidered as merely directory. whenever IL Is
sad that he Gcf shall nor Be performed 40
the ,inse. or ia The manner prescribed and
no other" The conclusion IS that. when
We c0nsirue a Constitution by Implication
OF such rlgor and infeXhility Is 10 defeat
the legislative regulations. We not only VIC
late accepted principles of Interpretation.
but We destroy the rights which the Consu-
tuition intended 10 guard"
In the opinion Of the Judges Of the Sn-
preme Court Of Nern ont, this same view
was adopted and they held that when the
Constitution contained no positive prohioi-
ton upon Legislative action. nor any posi-
tive rule rs 10 the time ahd place OF voting,
the will Of the Legislature must prevail rs
70 such vote and its deposit and canvass
This same idea is recognized in the case OF
Chase vs. Miller. . An. Lac Req. nstC Sc
res. .. l46.) where il is admitted that an
election in a military camp lcitkig he STATE.
could be held legal; but If We depart one
foot rom the polls. where shall we be com
PEELED by the Constitution 10 stop.
The case from the California Court Is not
accessible 10 me. and l cannot, therefore,
consider H. That Of Iowa. Morrison V.
Springer sd Am. Z. r., netr series, 256. J
Is, think. on all tours. with this before US,
and the judgment Of the Court in that case
IS not capable OF cOntroversiOn, aud that
Court holds and declares the law 10 be
that III the Constitution declares that q
thing shall Be done in particular way OF
manner, il is implied. necessarily that 1t
there is no such express declaration ant
none fairly TO be implied. the whole subject
is within Legislative discretion, and thl:
principle is fully recognized IN the case
from New Hampshire aud Connecticut re
ferred 10 by counsel regret that Oh,
proper limits OF a judicial decision, pre-
vent my making further comments upoi
these cases. They are worthy OF careful
reading and consideration.
Now then. can we say that the Legislatur'
has exceeded its power IN enactlng the law
before Us. We have seen that \ COnstitu
lion IS unlike statntary laws subject 10 NJ
! nferential Interpretation by court 10 DE
feat Legislative action, but that IL must b
= strictly construed. and with the idea AWAY
present and predominant that Legislative
, action is recognized and required. 10 ehec
, tuate in detail the popular will which III
: Constitution expresses. Such action th
I judiciary cannot question. except upon
I clear conviction produced by cOnsiderin.
+ the letter Of the Constitution, that II wa
y forbidden either by the letter, or 10y clea
. unQuestionable implication. The judgmen
Of the Legislature is paramount 10 that O
the Judiciary over every subject OF whicl
II has clear jurisdiction, and in doubtful
Z case the Legislative will must prevail,
In this law which We are considering, W
find The settled. determined, and clearly ex
pressed will of the people, and cannot pu
, nv finger upon any word or clause OF IN
, Constitution from which can conclude tina
! they have surrendered such will over thi
! subject, or parted with single right re
. speeding the regulation ofthe time or plac
> in which a qualified electOr may vote.
y We also lind that the Judiciary OF ever
h State before which this question has bee
4 presented. has invariably conceded IN
. supremacy Of the Legislature over the sub
r ject, unless expressly restrained by IN
: Constitution of the particular State With
which the Judgment was rendered. and tina
q the whole question has been made 20 dc
: pend upon that of express Constitutions
: prohibition or inevitable inference.
And in all we find that the question
I not free from doubt and THAI, in some il
Y stances, considerations OF policy and exp'
q diency, subjects with which the Court
have no control, have been employed {
. support opinions which hold the law il
. valid.
: So long "a this conflict Of opinion as I
n Legislative power over this subject exist
: and / find myselfunable 10 put my finger ~
l. on any express provisions Of the COnstitI
q ton which deprlves the Legislature OF ti
= right TO preserve The electoral privilege {
n our soldiers abroad from public and vital ~
d, cessity, | cannot hold that the Legislator
Z has exceeded its authority, nor allow 10 il
/. dicial doubts more potency than 10 the Lee
islative certainty.
! | think the judgment should be for u
q relatOr. GEO. MARTIN.