The Cadiz sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1864-1911, 1868-05-06
Ms ReX's BilI TO Preserve the
Purity of Election

case against the bill introduced in TO the
Senate by Mr.. Rex, and passed by that
body the more throughly ito preserve the
purity of elections. The fifth section of
this bill has excited the ire If the radicals"
TO pitch that is alarming. The bill is call
cd "scardalous" and is stigmatized as hav-
ling for its Object the disfranchisement Of
every scholar and student in every Theo-
Logical Seminary, University, college and
Academy in Ohio, except the very limited
lumber whose parents reside in the town
'or village where their sons are being edu-
''caied."
The section that has called forth SO much
railing is as follows:
"Fifth-A person shall not be considered
| or held 10 have gained residene in any
| township, city or iucoi iporated villege of
this State who may now be in attendance
upon, or who shall hereafter come into such
township, city or incorporated village to at.
ten! any school, seminary, academy, college,
university or other institution of learning
located or established therein, as a pupil,
scholar or student, unless the person in at.
tendance on such school, seminary, academy,
college, university or other institution of
| learning as such pupil. scholar or student
was legally qualified elector 0i the towns
ship, city or incorporated village in which
the same is located or established, or unless
the parent or parents OF such pupil, scholar
or stu1e0t had an actual reGideut therein in
accordance with the foregoing provisions of
this section, or had removed thereto with
the intention of making the same such resi-
dence before or at the time such attendance
commenced"
There is nothing terrible in this section
nothing which, as radical sheets assert is
designed as discrimination against e3uca-
ton, because college students are to in
''teigent to vote the Democratic ticket.
Its object, and its only object, is to disaow
the persons enumerated TO VOTE WHERE
THEIR RESIDENCE Is ONLY TEMPORARY
Other classes are prohibited from voting at
| places where thsir residence is merely teal
! porary. These students are at liberty to 60
to their homes and vote there. Examine
| the catalogues of these institutions of learn
ing and you will find the most OF the stu
dents registered as belonging to some other
| rlacethan where these institutions Of learn
ing are located. The question is not as to
how well they have been taught the science
''of governmept" and 'the science of po-
'litical economy the question is rot
whether these Collcge and University stu
dents discuss public questions with more
"ability--with more abundant presenta-
'tlon Of argument and authorities, and
more thorough and ample presentation Of
'facts-than the members of the Legisla-
''ture themselves" the question is not
whether the members Of the Junior and
''Senor classes in our leading Colleges are
better qualified to enact laws than the ma
'iority Of the Democratic members of this,
''or any other, Democratic Legislature that
has assembled i'll Ohlo;" the question is
mot whether a student having the minis
try in view, devotes two years to pre-
'paratory 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 is not
whether young men who have devoted
mine years Of thei, 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 of cleo
"tions, as the Oh'o State Journal would
have its readers believe; the only question
in issue is WHERE SHALL THEY VOTE? At
their recognized homes, or simply at their
temporary residence? As all other people
are required to vote at their recognized
homes, it will be difficult to furnish valid
reason why discrimination should he made
in favor OF students attending institutions
Of learning
But the Democratic members Of the
Ohio General Assembly who voted for the
the bill, containing the above quoted section
have not, in this matter, struck out in an
entirely new and hitherto untravced dis
rection. They have simply undertaken tc
walk in the road cut out by the Supreme
Court of Massachusetts and by the Con-
stitutions Of New Yolk, Maine and Cali
fornia. The Supreme Court of the State
of Massachusetts has decided see 5 Met
calf, 5S7, 50l that students who are in at
tendance on institutions OF learning for the
purposes Of education, and whose residence
is elsewhere, are not entitled to vote in the
places where the institutions OF learning
are. The judges decided:
I'm applying these rules to the proposed
question, We take it for granted At Das IN
tended to Apply to case achere he las ks
th0mtctie Of origin at p{occ other than
wiiere the institution is SjiuGted. In thut
case, WE ARE OF OPINION THAT HIS GOING
TO A PUBLIC INSTITUTION AND RESIDING
THERE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EpUCA-
TION, WOULD NOT OF ITSELF GIVE HIM A
RIGHT TO VOTE THERE, because it would not
necessarily change his domieile; but in such
case his right tC vote at that place would
depend upon all circumstance connected
with such residence. II he has father liv-
ing; If he still remains Hlenib3r Of his
fathers family; il he returns to pass his
vacation; if he is maintained and supported
By his family-thcse are strong circumstances
repelling the presumption of u change of
domicile. So, ifhe have no father living il
he have dwelling-house Of his own, or real
estate of which he retains the occupation;
If he has a mother or other connexions with
whom he has before been accustomed to re-
side, and to whose family he returns in vaca-
tons; fhe describes himself OF such place
and otherwise manifests his intent to con-
tue his domicile there-tbesc are all circnna-
stances tending to pr0re that las donicile as
not chaoaed.
y In general, it may be said that
an intent to change ones donicile and place
Of abode is not SO rapidly presumed from
residence at public institution, for the pur-
pose 0! education, for given length OF
time, as it would be from like removal
from one town to another ana residing there
for the ordinary purposes oflife; and, there.
fore, stronger circumstances must concur to
establish tie proofof 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 aRepublican Supreme Court. Is this
law discrimination against education in
that State2 Were the students In that