The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1866-04-05

tiop required for voting If the inspectors
are mere ministerial officers. then We see
no good reason why the general principle OF
law that ministerial officer is liable for a
wrong done by him acting 10 his official
character, though without malice, should
not be applied 1t is held otherwise. how
ever. in England. III New York and some
other States IPhe reason of these decisions
appears to be that the inspectors Of elections
are entrusted with discretionary authori
ty, and are guns, judicial officers In
Massachusetts and Ohio it is held the action
will lie without malice Lincoln vs. Hap
good, | Mass $50: Met 2g8; / Gray.
433; Jetfries vs. Ankony, IL Ono 3T3
9 Ohio ST.. 56S Some Of these decisions
are based partly on the State statute law
regulating elections AZ being different from
tie English law but mainly upon the ne
cessjty of protecting the highly valued priv
ilege Of voting when the law has provided
no other remedy. We adopt the rules OF
these decisions
II follows that the order Of the County
Court was erroneous
OPINION OF OaIER JUSTICE DIXON s.,
fully agree with Mr. Justice Uowner in
tue construction 70 he given to. the proviso
found in subdivision 4 section l, article
| Ii Of the Constitution Without the de-
termination of the board of canvassers III
1S49 aud the CONSEQUENT action Ut the leg,
isature and people since that time. all OF
which may he said to have taken place
without serious thought aud deliherat'on,
and certainly without debate on the me~n-
ing OF this proviso, | do not See how it's Ian
guage could ever have been the subject Of
doubt or controversy. To me, to whom the
question was new when this case was pre-
sented it has seemed from the very first
that the meaning vas a majority Of all
the votes cast Upv7a the Su1jef. The very
able arguments counsel upon both sides and
subsequent reflection have only tended to
confirm this my first impression. derived
from the language of the proviso itself 1t
is obvious from the very reading that three
and but three principles or leading ideas
were present to the minds of the trainers or
persons who prepared the proviso
First, that the right of suffrage should
not be extended to persons not already emu
merated in the section, without the assent
of the legislature to be evidenced by law
enacted for that purpose; second. that such
law should not be i'll force until submitted
to vote of the people and approved by a
majority of all the votes cast; and third,
that such submission to a vote of the PEG.
pie and majority of all the votes cas- should
be at some general election. According to
the language employed, all the safeguards
intended by the trainers to be thrown around
this important subject of the extension of
suffrage are obviously embraced i'll these
three principles. Any other construction it
seems to me, would be plain vlo alton of
the language and. where that is clear, as
think it is here, it must govern, and there
is really 10 room for construction. except to
apply the maxim that general words shall
be aptly restrained according to the subject
matter or person to which they relate. =
This maxim is Of very great weight in all
cases where the words used are general, or
not expressly applet III the text TO the sub
ject matter or person under consideration.
1t applies with peculiar force to the words
in this proviso, votes cast" which are gen
eral, and limits them to votes cast upon the
subject which the trainers had in mind,
namely, the extension of suffrage
The only words which can as it seems
to me, possibly lead to any different conclu
sion, are the words ''at such election, found
at the end Of the clause With those words
omitted, it seems TO ne that no one could
hesitate, but that all will assent to the cor
rectness Of our views, have already said
that one Of the principles manifested by the
provisions was, that the question should only
be submitted aud the votes taken at some
general election The object of this is very
clear At such All election the voters are
more generally at the polls Other Questions
are To be acted upon. and measures adopted
or rejected, III which all or a greater llunl
Der OF the electors feel an interest. At such
an election more full and fair expression
OF popular opinion would be obtained upon
the question of eXteusiou Of suffrage On
the ether hand ifthe question we're to be
submitted at a spe> iai election ordered for
that purpose, only those feeling an interest
In 1t would attend, aud tie measure might
be carried or defeated by majority Of the
votes cast, whilst if it had been at a g neral
election, with ALL or nearly all the qualified
voters present at the polls, with all oppor
turity to vote upon it, there might have
been very decided expression Of public
opinion the other way Such was the ad-
vantage to be- gained by su bmission at a
general election" and so prominent was the
idea in the minds of the trainers. that it is
repeated at the end of the clause after the
words votes cast" The words at such
election were inserted, as it were eU indus
trra, the more carefully aud thoroughly to
exclude the idea that majority Of votes
cast at any other than a general election
should suffice. Such repetitions are not un-
frequent in Legislative enactrnents and are
sometimes found in written Constitutions -
10 say "a majority Of all the votes cast at
such election" thus repeating the exact
words previously used In either case the
sense would be the same if the last words
had been omitted, but the repetition ex-
presses or seems to express the intentions of
the trainers with greater certainty and pre-
cision. But in neither case. in my judg-
ment, does the addition afford the slightest
ground for saying that the trainers intended
that votes cast at the same election upon
other subjects should be counted either for
or against the law for extending the right
Of suffrage Such provision in the consti-
tuition OF state would be an anomaly in
our system OF government. 1t would be
contrary to the fundamental American idea,
which Is that IN all popular elections the
will OF the majority Of the voters, voting up
on any subject or question submitted shall
prevail. Ii must be supposed that the con
vention acted upon this idea in forming and
submitting and tie people in ratifying the
constitution, and its language must be in
terpreted in conformity to it, unless Is con
trary intention is clearly expressed If we
look to other similar provisions of the con-
stitution aud especially those which elected
debate and careful examination of the
language employed, we find this idea strict
y adhered to This is strikingy exempt.
bed III the section which provides Tor sub
uniting the question of bank or no
bank" The same is also true of the pro
visions for submitting amendments to the
constitution for calling convention to re-
wise or change it and some others All
these provisions instead Of showing or tend
my to sno". as las eoutended, that AL az
oal voting majority was not to govern up