The Cadiz sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1864-1911, 1868-09-30
Prom the Ohio Statesman.
The SfndenIssX Xniing Law

We understand, that there is an intention
in certain quarters to treat the Students
voting law as unconstitutional That law
Is constitutional, and has been so decided
by the Courts. About this there is no mis-
take. lsy the District Court that met at
Urbana, on the Goth of April, Judge Welch,
a member of the Supreme Court prOnOunc-
ed the unanimous opinion Of the c urt that
the Students Voting Law is Constitutional
Some controversy having arisen as to what
the Court did decide with regard 20 this law,
we addressed a note to Judge Gilmore, who
was member of the District Court that
passed upon 4he Ceastitutionality of the law,
making inquiry as to what has been decid
ed, and he responded in the following note:
HAMILTON, o., June l3, 1868.
i. B EsH LIAN-Dedr SRI am in re-
ceipt of yours of the Sth inst.
You ask, What the District Court at
Urbana, on the Goth ult-, did decide with
reference to the Students Voting Law2
The questions decided were raised by
demurrer fled by the plaintiff COLLINS to
the answer OF the defendants, Martin and
others, trustees, &c.
Two questions were argrcd and decided,
viz: the constitutionahty of the law and if
as defense under it.
Judge Welch, delivering ANONYMOUS opm-
non OF Tie Court, held. tt q 2 A.a
! First. That the idtU ards constitutional; and,
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.
The case was before the Supreme Cour
on the 2Sth ult., then in session at CClum
bus. on motion for leave to file a petition
in error to rever ed the decision of the Dis
trict Court, which was refused, as you hay,
doubtless been informed.
Respectfully yours &C.,
w. j. GILMORE.
The Supreme Court, on the 2Sth Of April
by refusing to allow writ Of error to be I'll
ed to reverse the decision of the Distric
Court, in effect affirmed the decision. Hence
the law must be treated as in tull force un
til the Legislature shall repeal it.
A violation of this law by student sub
|, jects him to fine of not more than fiv
f hundred do lars, nor less than two hundred
dollars, and Imprisonment in the count
/, jail of not more than six months, nor les
than three morths. If any Judge of tn
; Election shall knowingly receive or sanctio
the receE ton of such unlawful vote, be sui
jects himself to fine of not more than on
thousand deEars nor less than three hur
: dred,. dollars, and to be imprisoned in tn
r county Jail not more than six nor less tha
three months. f
The law puts students on TIE same foo
ing with other voters. They shall vote a
their actual place of residence, and no whel
? else.
, The Supreme Court of Massachusetts (se
5 Metealf, 5S7, 59l) has decided that st,
dent 'going to pmbhc institution ane y
siding there solely for the purpose Of edncC
tion aconld not of itsclt gice him right
rote there,
: The Constitution of New York, Main
and California provide that the residenC
of Student at any Seminary of aearnif
E shall not entite him to the right of votir
in the town where such seminary is estaI
e llshed. a --,
a We make these references to show tht
=, neither this law nor the decisions of II
: courts attesting its constitutionality, is sil
gular.