Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1865-02-28

spirit OF our fundamental law
assume the further position that the right
10 vote Is peuonal right and inheres 10 every I
merican cit zea and must be exercised 70 person 4
At the time and place. ard ia the manner pre-
scribed in the constitution: and that this sacred .
right cannot be delegated TO or performed by A.
other: and in support OF this position submit
the following authorities:
The supreme court Of New Hampshire on
this point say:
"By the common law in elections Of public
and municipal corporations. and in all other pub
lie elections, every vote mus, be personally
given-2 Kent Com 294 Getting the case Of the
Dean. SC. OF Feres. Davis. 1897 Apg A
Corp. I'D ed 95-97, Taylor vs Griswold. ?
Green y J 226. 234. 235; Phillips Wick
ham, l Paige SIC; State W Tudor Dav 1913.
See Attorney General vs. Scott. Vesey Alb
The history of the origin OF the powers of
towns in New England and Of the nature and
usages OF their meetings, shows that in this re
-pect the practice here. before and at the date OF
the adoption OF the constitution, was 10 accord
anee with the general rule Of the common law.
As the language OF the constitution IS to be
understood IN the sense in which i; WAS used az
the time Of its adoption (opnion OF the Justices.
IL. Y. II 50l) aud At that time, both by the
common law and by the settled usage here, the
right of voting for public officers right that
must be exercised personally by the voter. al the
meetings held for that purpose. it follows that. If
different provision IS made in the constitution,
the right of suffrage established by it is to be ex
ercsed by the rofer in person, at the meetings
duly held fer that purpose.
These provisions of our constitution, so far
from showing an intention 10 depart from the
general rule OF the common law 10 the per
-onal presence of voters az public elections, seem
to Us TO assume its applicability, and to require
that the right of voting at elections shall be ex-
EQd nv ka rofe~ fba afiNor.
duly held for the purpose. in the places in the
state pointed out by the constitution. and at times
in accordance with It's provisions. Ii is also
somewhat significant fact that no attempt. so far
as We are aware, has ever before been made in
this state TO dispense with the necessity of the
presence at the meetings of the town, &c. OF
each elector who shall exercise the right Of suf
frsge"
Whether, in every case the elector must cast
his vote with his own hand, we need not inquire;
for lift were allowable that the votes OF infrm
disabled electors be deposited for them in their
presence, il would BY no means follow that this
could be done for them in their absence; for an
act done by me, in the presence and under the
control OF another for that other. is regarded not
as the exercise of delegated authority. but
the personal act of the party in whose behalf it
was performed but il is otherwise. where the
act is done by person directions in mis- absence
and beyond his control. Kidder vs. Prescott. 4.
Foster 1868; Hanson vs.. Rome, Foster 327. +"
The supreme court of Pennsylvania say. " Re
gardng the amendment as designed in general
TO exclude fraudulent voting the question
Is, what construction shall be given TO its partic
uar phraseology 7 Constituting the words accord
ing to the plain and literal import (and We must
presume that the people of Pennsylvania con-
strued them so when they adopted the amend
ment) they mean. undoubtedly that the citizen
possessing the other requisite qualifications is TO
have a ten DAYS residence in an election district
| and is TO offer his ballot in that district
The second section OF this article requires all
| popular elections 10 be by ballot To 'offer to
vote by ballot, IS TO present oneself with pOrper
qualifications. at the time and place appointed.
and to make manual deIirery OF the ballot to the
officers appointed by law to receive il The bal
lot cannot be sent by mail or express. nor can it
be cast outside of all pennsylvania election die
tricts and certified into the county where the
| has his domicil We cannot be persuaded that
| the constitution ever contemplated any such
mode of voting, and We have abundant reasons
for thinking that TO permit it would break down
all the safeguards of honest suffrage The con-
sttution meant, rather that the voter, IN prOpTia
persona. should offer his vote 10 appropriate cleo
ton district, in order that his neighbors might be
/ at hand to establish his right 20 vote il il were
challenged, or to challenge if il were doubtful >"
The amendment so understood. introduced
not only new test OF the right Ot suffrage, TO
wit, district residence, bat a rule OF yotig also
| place becam me an element OF suffrage for a two
told purpose. Without the district residence no
man shall vote. but having the district residence
the right it confers Is TO vote in that district
Such is the voice of the constitution. The test
and the rule equally obligatory, we have no
power to dispense with either. Whoever would
claim the franchise which the constitution grants
must exercise it in the manner the constitution
| prescrbes "
The supreme court of Connecticut say:
But no one, we presume, has heretofore sup
posed, that man who was detained by sickness
at his home, OF tina. many who are every year
by business in other ststes IN Congress. the
departments at Washington. or in coasting yes
sells. or in the navy yards, otherwise absent
from home. could. by mere provision of law
be favored with special opportunity 10 vote"
Chancellor Kent in his Commentaries says,
" Though in the case Of elections in public and
municipal corporations. and in all other elections
of public nature, every vote must be personally
given; yet in the case OF moneyed corporations,
instituted for private purposes, il has been held
that the right of voting by proxy might be dele
gated by the by- laws Of the institution when the
charter is silent" See ?. Kent Com. p 295
/, Dir. Speaker: With the indulgence of the
} House will very briefly review the legislative
and judicial action OF the several states on the
The legislature OF Pennsylvania the first that
passed a law authorizing such of her citizens as
we're in the military and naval service of the
United States, to vote At places outside of the
limits of that state This law was passed in
1861
By virtue of this law the soldiers of that state
voted The election was contested for that res-
son. The validity of the law was, in May, 1862.
, passed on by the supreme court of that state,
and the law held TO be in conflict with the
constitution, for the reason that the constitution
required electors TO offer their ballots IN the cleo
ton district where they resided. The court held
that the right to vote must be exercised at the
place prescribed in the constitution and not
elsewhere An attempt has been made to weaken
the force OF this decision BY alleging that the
court was influenced and controlled by personal
and partisan motives. The leading opinion of
the court was delivered by Judge Woodward, a
man of great learning, purity of character and
exalted and undoutted patriotism Ii has been
said that the opinion delivered but short
time before the election for governor in that
state in 1863. when Judge Woodward was the
democratic candidate for that office
This is not true he opinion delivered
e in MAY, 1862 and Judge Woodward was not
nominated until June 1868, more than twelve
months afterwards | understand that the mem
bers of the court were equally divided 10 poiii.
cal sentiment. This opinion was afterwards en-
dorsed and approved by the supreme courts of
! Connecticut aud New Hampshire After this de-