The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, 1865-03-15
Speech Of Hon. J. B. Welch.

Dc',rs-sl III ts House Of RgDreSaltqnrs
Of tie STATE of Michigan, on Thursday
February 23rd, 1864, on <ts Contestsc
seats depsnding Upon the Sol5isrS' Sur
frags lar.
Ma. SPEAKER: The question before Us !:
one OF great magnitude and one which
ought 10 be well considered By every candiC
mind. have had, sir, more or less 10 DC
with this subject matter, ever since the pro-
+ position Was made 70 grant our soldier.
in the fed the right Of tne elective franchise
Sir IL was matter which took deep hold
on me, having been. perhaps, over anxious
10 sustain this Government, and willing al
all times 70 make all sacrifices necessary. to
furnish men or money. and having used
every eXertiOn. 10 the best Of my ability. 10
send men into the field. and have succeeded
perhaps as well IS any one individual. in
filing the army Of our Republic. and having
taken many responsibilities upon myself 70
obtain these men. I feel bound 10 look after
their rights, and among these privileges
was the right OF the elective franchise.
When, SIT. the people Of nv district con-
ferred upon me the honor Of representa-
them on this floor. il was made imperative
Oh me 10 look af er the rights Of these men.
and Of course the only remedy for them must
be through the Constitution. This instru-
ment was then carefully examined by NE.
which al first glance looked fOrbidding. when
l read section l, Of article :, which reads as
follows:
d" No citizen or inhabitant shall be an
elector, or entitled 10 vote at anv election
unless he has resided in this State three
months, and in the township or ward in
which he offers 70 vote, ten days next pre-
ceding the election"
This seems 10 me TO he conclusive evi-
dence that the man in person must be there.
but as followed along found 10 my mind
what was tie redeeming clause for the SOL
diers and i, reads as follows:
mo electOr shall be deemed 10 have
gained Or lost residence by reason Of his
being employed in the United States ser
vice And from this clause Of the Consti-
tuition propose 70 base my argument.
The state or New York, in 1921. had
Constitution which provided THAT every
male citizen OF the age Of twenty-one years.
who shall have been an lnhabitant Of this
state New York; one year preceding an
election, an Tor the last SIX months resi-
Gent OF The town or county where he may
offer 10 vote" sc. This constitutional pro-
'4IADh Wa ANNAll VI Auilc d SltDl- III re-
latiOn TO residence as the provisions in our
own Constitution, and yet no one al that
date pretended 10 any such construction as
is now sought to be placed upon our Con
stitutiOn. Indeed, If | mistake not. the
Legislature Of New York provided bv law
that an electOr might vote for State officers
any where in the State. And so general
was the acceptatiOn Ofthis construction. that
2 hf. / lot Of rtts,-
1925 and 1926. adopted an amendment 10
this provision Of their Constitution. which
was afterwards ratified By the people. by
adding after the word vote" the words
" shall be entitled 10 vote in the town or
ward where he actually resides. and not
elsetrhere, FOR all officers that now are or
may hereafter be elective By the pe0pla
See Revised Statutes Of New York. vol. l
second edition. pages SO and 5O.)
| now take this position: lst. That the
Constitution IS not granting, but a restrict
ing or limiting power and all power is vest
ed in the people; end the Legislature Of a
state IS therefore only limited in legislatinr
for the good Of the people, by the positive
or restrictive prohibitions Of the COnstitu-
ton. l believe this TO be q proposition
which will not be denied. Then, the only
question which remains is this: Is there a
provision in the Constitution which was in
tended to, and does amount to a prOhibi-
ton?
Now. sir had the trainers Of that instru-
ment intended 10 have disfranchised the
soldiers or other persons employed in the
l Jnlted States service, why this clause, that
any person having entered that service
should not be deemed 10 have gained or lost
his residence? Why not leave it according
TO section !, article :; that the man offer
ing 10 vote has resided in this State three
months, and IN the township ten davs next
preceding such election?
Now, in my judgment sir, can see no
other reason than that they in their minds
had Just such case as the soldiers right
OF suffrage, which they believed the Legis-
lature would provide for and which thev
nave secured 10 the soldiers in strict accord
ance with the Constitution.
Now, sir, after having briefly given my
views upon the cOnstitutiOnalitv Of this
question. must proceed TO discuss some
what the proposition before US. and ASSIGN
my reasons why the prayer Of the petitioner
for seat in this House should not be
granted.
lst- Because, in my judgment. the present
incumbent IS conStitutionally elected
ID That he has been cOnstituti0nanv in
Quoted into this House. If not by virtue Of
his election by the people, he has been sub
stantially made 4 member bv the action Of
this House, and having been made such
member by taking the constitutional oath
and subscribing his name. be IS a legal and
rightful member, and can only be removed
by expulsion. in which case his place could
only be filed by 2 new election Of tie
people
Now, Mr.. Speaker, the rights and privi-
leges OF this body are equally sacred TO that
any OF the Coordinate branches Of the GOV
ernment, and the Constitution giving 10
this BODY exclusive jurisdiction over It's own
members. its judgments are as final for it.
self as the judgments ofthe Supreme Court
FOR Itself; and when. having acted upon sub
lect matters pertaining to its own members.
and having made : decision In any rjven
point IN Judicial capacity, il carries al
other questions Of ike character with K.
the same as the decisions OF the Supreme
Court, from which there is 10 appeal. They
are bound 70 abide their own decisions. and
al Inferior courts must obey lis established
precedents- Such then, being the case. that
this House has fully settled the question
DOW before Us in former decisions, We can
not 20 back Of those decisions, as they are
the well established rules for governing all
other cases Of Ike character.
Now, sir, after having briefly submitted
my views, giving such legal points a
seemed to be clear in this case, I Will onlv
add, that Notwithstanding I have all due
difference 10 the opinions Of the honorable
Judges, who differ with me on this great
question, yet, sir. have some regard for
The opinions OF the Chief Justice Of that
honorable body, whose judgment seems to
accord with my own, and in nv opinion.
With the ablest legal talent Of this State.
Now. complaint is made bv some certain
individuals Of this House, demanding the
reason why we do not bow al once 10 the
decision Of the Supreme Court. Wecann6t
see our duty TO lie in abject subservience TO
The courts dictum. in decision which in
no manner affects the rights and inGepen-
1ence OF this coordinate branch Of the GOV
arnmeDt Certain editors o- -hss- -o.---.