The Lansing state Republican., 1865-02-08
The Soldiers Voting Law.
OPINION or Associate Jrs7IcEJ. ". CAup-
BELL

-. Me-
rs. Amos c. Bl0igett. The relatOr cause
: this information 10 be iiled claimino ~
: al the election n the fall Of 1861 be ra
L ceived a majority of The le1-al vote. for m
b Office OF Prosecuting Attorney tortha conn
" OF Nashtenaw. The Incumbent. accor
: ding 10 tie agreed statement Of facts ra
L celYed q majority On tie home vote: an,
= the county tanvassers. rejecting the sol
q diers vote gave him a certificate OF elec
tlOn- Had the vote OF the soldiers haef
counted, Iwitcnell would have been found
elected lie regularity az The vote IS moi
? ulspule', ana the only question presented
Iof our decision Is. whether the act OF the
legislature authorizing the soldiers in the
held 10 vote out Of their own townships :
constitutional. II the law ) valid. Twiich-
!. ell = enlte! o the Office lfiJ Is invalid
the incumbent has q right 10 retain it.
The argument has been extended. and
has presented great variety Of consider
ailons, which have been urged upon rs as
proper 10 govern our action. Tie imDor-
lance % the question, as determining upon
the voting privileges OF a large number OF
electors, Is obvious and 4 resort 10 every
appropriate source OF light upon the sub-
Ject Is not only permissible but necessary
% q inst and complete performance Of duty.
But the wide range OF argument neces sarilv
opened IN the case renders il proper TO
indicate an opinion 10 some extent upon
the proper sources Of Information. and in
ORDER that no apprehension may arise
concerning what may be regarded as legit-
innate elements Of decision.
The case is happily free from one class Of
questions which sometimes NAV Introduce
confusion. The ordinary disputes. coucer-
ming the distribution OF power between the
people and their various departments and
agencies OF Government, 90 lot arise in
the present controversy l. is conceded
That the power Of regulating the time and
manner OF elections and the places where
they may be held, is one which is lersla-
I'VE IN It's nature, and belongs 10 that body
Which Is entrusted with the general legsla
tive authority, unless the Constitution has
limited or destroyed this control over il
And we are only concerned. therefore IN
drtcI mining, whether tho Constitution of
Michigan has prevented the State Lcgisla-
ture from exercising complete control over
the locality OF elections, and whether. if
such control is limited. the limitation is
applicable 10 the subject before Us
II was contenled on the argument that.
II the Constitution Is silent on the subject.
the Legislature may not allow the citizens
OF Michigan 10 vote beyond its limits.
Whether the State can provide such safe
guards against abuse abroad as il can at
home, cannot govern legislative action on
such matter. II there IS no constitution
al prohibition. the Legislature must de-
termlne for itself whether the importance
Of securing the privilege OF voting 10 its
citizens abroad is Overbllnced by the
difficulty OF enfOrceing all the safeguards
against abuse, which may be enforced at
home in al cases. The sanctions and pen
altles which are not required by the COnsti
tuti0n may be disposed with. II that be
deemed eXpedent. So far, il is mere
question OF policy. whether they shall be
required. We are not in this case called
upon TO decide whether the State could. or
could not, enforce the several duties or
penalties prescribed in the act should its
would have been needless TO refer 10 the
subject Of eXtra-territOrial action at all. had
il not entered into the consideration OF
other courts in dealing with this general
subject. The concessions made on the ar
gument render il unnecessary % consider
at all the limits Of eXtra-terrtOrial action,
aud they may. therefore, be regarded as
unimpOrtant in dispOsing of this case.
We have had cited before Us several dec-
siOns OF different State courts upon provis-
ions OF their own Constitutions. supposed
to be more or less ike ours. and We are
asked TO follow them as authority. Upon
questions of this nature such decisions can
only be valuable from their intrinsic weight
and force of argument. They have all been
made since our own constitution was adj
opted. They are all dependent upon their
own local regulations. and are placed upon
grounds which SAVIOR more or less OF their
own local customs and ideas, Even where
two Constitutions contain the same phrase
or its equivalent. it is quite possible that
the context NAV show that it does not
mean the same thing in both. None OF the
decisions produced before Us have any
bearing upon the present controversy eX-
cept those in Iowa California and Pelnsvl-
vania The Courts Of California and Iowa
disagree upon the effect of a phrase ilenti-
cal in the Constitutions of both States. The
clause construed by the Supreme Court OF
Pennsylvania is more nearly like the princi-
pal clause in our constitution which has
been discussed before us but consideration
are introduced into the discussion which
DO not all exist in Michigan. While il is
to be hoped we have been able 10 profit bv
the arguments and suggestions OF those
learned tribunals. we are nevertheless forchd
ate conclusions. what effect IS 10 be given
10 our own Constitution.
1t is not necessary to cite or discuss the
various rules Of construction which have
been from time to time suggested boy courts. I
They are all designed 10 and Us in deter
mining what the exact meaning ofthe Con .
stitutjou is While men may not always
agree in their opinions, there can be but
one true meaning To any constitutional
provision. and it is the duty Of q court TO
determine. upon its own responsibility.
what that the true meaning Is ia law is
70 be tested by the constitution. il IS the
duty therefore Of the court to make such a
decision a. accOrds with is carefully fDrmeI
and settled convictions. after usinr all
accessible means OF enlightenment The
meaning of our Constitution was fixed
when il was adopted and the question
which is now before Ms is no different from
what il would have been had the COnstitu-
ton been recently adopted These char
ters of tee government are adopted br the
people for their own guidance. as vel! as
Tor the guidance Of the government when
they establish. They are designed 70 pro
vide for contingencies not fOreseen. IS well '
as those which are IOre>een Il usually
happens that their founders are more .pr6-
vident than they themselves imagined q
the time of their action When thev ac.
upon sound general rules this is most a.
ways the case. Il can hardly be supposed /
that the trainers OF the Constitution Of the
United States regarded It as possible that
the integrity Of the Union should have been
as rudeiy assailed as il has been: and yer
the Constitution has proved 10 be as well
adapted 10 the present exigencies as %
those Of the early DAYS Of the Republic.
But it may easily happen that specific pro- .
vision may, in unforeseen emerrencles. turn .
out to have been inexpedent. This does
not make these provisions any less binding .
Constitutions cannot be changed hv events .
alone. They remain binding as the acts OF t
the people in their severe n capacity. a
the trainers Of Government. until thev are
amended or abTogated by the action pre-
scrlbed by the authority WHICH created
them. Il i not competent for any depart
ment or the Government 10 change a Con-
stitution OF TO declare II changed simply .
because it appears Ill adapted 10 4 new
state Of things.
Il the people. in establishing this Gov
pr0mln- n rfi1a1 ra----a- --r,- ~-r..---