Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-04-16
Ir. Rex's hill 10 Preserve the
Purity of Elections. a

FlbuDcIdbtOu 10 uOb al ohChts w ClO ib3
he Journal would have made strong case
yesterday against the bill introduced into
The Senate by Mr.. REX, and passed by that
body, the more thoroughly "to preserve
the purity of elections" The fifth section
of this bill has excited the ire of the Jour
mai to a pitch that is really alarming. The
bill 1t denominates "scandalous," and as
having for its object "the disfranchisement
OF every scholar and student in every
Theological Seminary, University, College
and Academy in Ohio, except the very
limited number whose parents reside in the
town or village where their sons are being
educated"
The section that has called forth nearly
one column of vituperation from the Jour
aal is the following: (, g-7l-v rys-f +, vef,
"Fifth-A person shall not be considered
/ ,r held to have gained residence in any
wnship, city or incorporated village OF
upon, or who shall hereafter come into such
township, city or incorporated village to
attend any school, seminary, academy, col
Ilege, university or other institution OF
learning, located or established therein, as
pupil, scholar or student, unless the per-
son in attendance on such school, seminary,
academy, college, university or other in
stitntion of learning as such pupil. scholar
or student was legally qualified elector
of the township, city or incorporated vii
iage In which the same is located or estab-
lished, or unless the parent or parents OF
such pupil, scholar or student had an actual
| residence therein in accordance with the
foregoing provisions of this section, or had
removed thereto with the intention ofmak-
rRfr I.nNN nr a
the time such attendance commenced"
There is nothing terrible in this section
nothing, as the Journal claims, designed as
discrimination against education, because
s'college students are too Intelligent to vote
the Democratic ticket" Its object, and its
only object, is to disallow the persons emu
merated to vote where their residence is
only temporary. Other classes are prohib-
tied from voting at places where their resi-
dence is merely temporary. These students
are at liberty to go to their homes and vote
there. Examine the catalogues of these
institutions of learning and you will find
the most of the students registered as be-
longing to some other place than where
these institutions of learning are located
The question is not as to how well they
have been taught 'the science of govern
ment" and s.the science of political econo-
my;" the question is not whether "these Col
|lege and University students discuss public
questions with more ability-with more
abundant presentation of arguments and
authorities, and more thorough and am
pie presentation of facts-than the mem
bers of the Legislature themselves )" the
question is not whether "the members Of
the Junior and Senior classes in our leading
Colleges are better qualified to enact laws
than the majority of the Democratic mem
bers of this or any other Democratic Leg
islature that has assembled in Ohio; )" the
question is not whether "a student having
the ministry in view, devotes two years to
q preparatory course, and four years to the
course of study in the College proper, be-
fore he receives his degree of Bachelor Of
Arts" should vote; the question lis not
whether s.young men who have devoted
nine years of their lives to the work Of
fitting themselves for the sacred calling
must be excluded by law from the polls in
order to preserve the purity ofelections," as
the Journal would have its readers believe;
the only question in issue is, tohere shall ttes
cote? At their recognized homes, or SIM
ply at their temporary residence? As al
other people are required to vote at theil
recognized homes, twill be difficult to fur
nish valid reason why discrimination
should be made in favor of students attend.
ing institutions oflearning. But the DEM
ocratic members of the Ohio General AS
sembly who voted for the bill containing
the above quoted section, have not in this
matter'struck out in an entirely new and
hitherto untraveled direction. They have
simply undertaken to walk in the road cut
out by the Supreme Court of Massachu-
sets, and by the Constitutions of New
Court of the State of Massachusetts has
decided [see METCALF, 5S7, sol
that students who are in attendance on
Institutions OF learning for the purposes of
g lucation, and whose residence is else
where, are not entitled to vote. in the places
where the institutions of learning are.
The judges decided:
SIN applying these rules to the proposed
question, we take it for granted it soas IL,
tended to apply to q case sohere the student has
his donsicile of origin at q place other than
,rhere the institution is situated. Tn that case.
WE ARE OF OPINION THAT HIS GOING TO A
PUBLIC INSTITUTION AND RESIDING THERE
SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION
WOULD NOT OF ITSELF GIVE HIM RIGHT TO
VOTE THERE, because it would not necessa-
rily change his domicile; but in such case
his right to vote at that place would de-
pend upon all the circumstances connect
ed with with such residence. If he has a
father living; if he still remains member
OF his fathers family; if he returns to pass
his vacations; ifhe is maintained and sup
ported by his family-these are strong cir
cumstances repelling the presumption of a
change of dOmicile. So, if he have no
father living; if he have dwelling-house
of his own, or real estate of which he re-
tains the occupation; if he has mother or
other connexions with whom he has before
been accustomed to reside, and to whose
family he returns in vacations; If he de-
scribes himself of such place and other
wise manifests his intent to continue his
dOmicile there-these are all circumstances
tending to proue that his donaicile is not
changed.
IS In general, it may be said that
an intent to change ones domicile and
place of abode is not so readily presumed
from residence at public institution, Tor
the purpose of education, for given length
of time, as it would be from like remo-
val from one town to another and residing
there for the ordinary purposes OF life; and,
therefore, stronger circumstances must
concur to establish the proof of change Of
domicile in the one case than in the other"
That is the law in Massachusetts,, in Re-
publican Massachusetts, and SO pronounced
by Republican Supreme Court. Is this
law discrimination against education in
that State? Were the students in that
State better qualified to pass upon the Con-
stitution and law than the Judges who
thus passed upon it? The people of New