Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-09-24
Th. stasdenssss, vosisg Law.

We understand, that there Is an intention
In certain quarters to treat the Students
.zyoting law as Unconstitutional. That law
is constitutional, and has been so decided
by the Courts. About this there Is no mis-
take.o BY the District Court that met at
Urbatia, on the 20th of April, Judge
WEIGH, member of the Supreme Court
pronounced the unanimous opinion of the
Court that the Students Voting Law Is
Constitutional. Some controversy having
arisen as to what the Court did decide with
regard to this law, we addressed note to
Judge GILMORE, who was member Of the
District Court that passed upon the Con-
stitutionality of the law, making inquiry
as to what had been decided, and he re-
spcnded in the following note:>
HAMILTON, o., June IS, 1868. /
E.B. EsHELMAN-Dear Sir II am in re-
ceipt of yours of the 9Th inst.
You ask, What the District Court at Ur-
baila, on the Both ult-,l did decide with re-
ference to the Students Voting Law ?"
The questions decided were raised by q
demurrer filed BY the plaintiff (Collins) to
., the answer Of the defendants, Martin and
others, trustees, dc.
Two questions were argued and decided.
viz the constitutionality of the law, and
if constitutional, the sufficiency of the an
swer, as defense under it.. Il o. aC1am
Judge Welch, delivering the unanimous
opinion of the Court, held:
First, Thai the law soas Constitutional :
- Secondly, that the facts set forth in the
answer were not. in law, sufficient to con-
stitute good defense to the action, and the
demurrer was therefore sustained; to
which the defendants excepted. s.,,s 1T
The case was before the Supreme Court
on the 2Sth ult., then in session at Column
bus, on a motion for leave to file petition
in error to reverse the decision of tn Dis
2tficf Court, which was refused, las You
have doubtless been informed. =
WI. GILMORE.
The Supreme Court, on the 28th of April,
by refusing to allow a writ of error to be
filed to reverse the decision of the District
Court. in effect affirmed the decisiors. Hence
the law must be treated as inlfnlE force hn-
til the Legislature shall repeal it.
A violation OF this law by student SUBJ
jects him to a fine, of not more than five
hundred dollars, nor less than two hundred
dollars, and Imprisonment in the county
Jail of not more than six months, nor less
than three months. If any Judge of the
Election shall knowingly receive or sane
tion the reception of such unlawful vote,
he subjects himself to a fine of not more
than one Thousand dollars, nor less than
three hundred dollars, and to be imprison-
ed in the county Jail not more than six nor
less than three months. y1ooZ
The law puts students on the same foot
ing with other voters. They shall vote at
their actual place of residence, and no
where else.
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts,
(see 5 Metcalf, 5s7, 59l) has decided that
a student going to public institution and re-
siding there solely for the purpose of education,
.oould not of itself giue him right to vote
there" 3c E'ois iisi . sva5 ~
The Constitutions of New York, Maine
and California provide that the residence
of,a Student at any Seminary of4learning
shall not entitle him to the right of voting
in the town where such seminary is estab-
liShed. s9 li.v daif-s as-l,iss= tns--e 81 rs 20
We make these references to show that
neither this law nor the decisions of the
courts attesting its constitutionality, is
singular.