Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-11-18

Ohio, In which it is distinctly stated that
the election of Col. Lewis D. Campbell
is to be contested. The following are the
points of the letter:
''Gen. Schenck has consented that the
contest shall be made, but only as a means
of testing the right of the disabled vete-
rams who reside in his district to vote.
Except as 10 the use of his name he is in
no way party to the contest, leaving it
to the committee to devote the necessary
time, trouble and expense. His conssitu-
ents feeling outraged at the result of
the election, he stipulated with
them that there should be no other ground
OF contest, no trayersipg the district to
scrutinize the poll lists, no scramble. The
letter states at some length the history of
the asylum, and says the question will be
carried TO Congress. Ii says the case will
be submitted on the ground that the loca-
ton of the asylum was not ceded to the
United States, but to corporation crea-
ted under an act of Congress, and that in
ceding jurisdiction 10 the United Statesin
a place which belongs to a corporation
the State can impose any conditions she
pleases. If the terms upon which the
State OF Ohio was wiling to grant juriS
diction 10 the United States were incon-
sistent with the Constitution, then these
very terms, being repugnant, prevent any
grant from taking effect"
The question upon which Col. Camp
bells election is to be contested, has been
settled by the highest Judicial tribunal in
Ohio, the Judgesof which areall Radicals
But Gen. Sckenck is not satisfied with
this decision, simply because he was moi
elected over Col Campbell, and he has
'Eeonsenied'' to an appeal from this court
to partisan majority in Congress. He
appeals from the unanimous decision of
the Supreme Court of Ohio 10 Congress
for the decision of partisan majority on
a purely judicial question. To show that
this contest is not for the purpose OF
E'testing the right of the disabled veterans
who reside in his district TO vote" but
the appeal Of demagogue TO his partisan
friends in Congress TO give him the seat
the people of his district denied him, we
ask attention TO the following article from
the Cincinnati Gazette (IaadicaD of Nov.
4:
''fhe Supreme Court of Ohio, in de.
Gliding this case, uttered no new princi
pie, and made no new application of it.
1t found high precedents that covered the
whole question, and therefore there was
no room for dissent. Il uttered the quail.
ifications of an elector in Ohio, as they
are uttered in the Constitution. 1t had
to allow that the United States had ex.
elusive jurisdiction of the site of the
Dayton Asylum, because the United
States Constitution provides that Con.
gress may accept the cession of such ex.
elusive jurisdiction by State Legislature
for certain specific purposes, which will
include this; and because it appeared in
evidence that the Ohio Legislature had
coded such jurisdiction, and Congress
had accepted il. Various decisions oil
high Courts had affirmed such jurisdic-
ton in places so ceded, and that the citi,
zens thereof did not remain Citizens OF
the State from which such cession of ju-
risdiction was made. The Court die moi
undertake to overthrow precedents and
law.
"rhere is provision in the act of the
Ohio Legislature making the cession of
jurisdiction at Dayton, which reserves the
right of the residents of said asylum to
vote at the township, county and State
elections; but the Court found that re-
peated decisions had affirmed not only
that by becoming a resident inmate of the
asylum the person ceases to be citizen
of the State, but that a residence under
the exclusive jurisdiction of the United
States is incompatible with the rights of q
voter in State elections. 1t said, there
fore:
"By becoming a resident inmate of
the asylum a person, though up to that
time he may have been citizen and resi-
dent of Ohio, ceases 10 be such; he is
relieved from any obligation TO contribute
to her revenues, and is subject to none
of the burdens which she imposes upon
her citizens. lie becomes subject 20 the
exclusive jurisdiction of another power,
rs foreign to Ohio as is the State of In
diana, or Kentucky, or the District of
Columbia. The constitution of Ohio re.
quires that electors shall be residents of
the State; but, under the provisions OF
the Constitution of the United States, and
by the consent and act of cession of the
Legislature of this State, the grounds and
buildings Of this asylum have been de.
tachcd and set off from estate of Ohio,
and ceded to another government, and
placed under its exclusive jurisdiction for
All indefinite period
"rhe Court was not administering upon
sympathy, but upon the law. II is short
process 10 say, without reading the opin-
ion of the Court, that its conclusion would
run to An absurdity, and, if so, the re-
verse must be true. This method places
all the weapons in the hands of him who
pronounccs the word absudity. 1t is no
greater abstTdity nor hardship that invalid
soldiers in national army may not vote
than that all soldiers in the regular army
may not. The same argument may be
made that by this the country's defenders
are disfranchised, and that thus you give
4 vote 90 the Irish, the Chinese and the
negroes, and you deny it TO the war-worn
soldier, simply because he is risking his
life in his conty's service Yet the
founders Of our government made it an
essential feature of republican institutions
that the soldiers of the regular army shall
not vote.
at would be easy TO say that a prlnci-
pie which deprives the country's defend
ers of votes comes TO an absurdity, and
therefore the opposite must be true. But
the country has always accepted this rule
as wise. There are many who say that
to allow Irish and negroes, and the most
ignorant and degraded males to vote, and
TO keep intelligent and refined women and
young men 90 years old disfran-
chised, is an absurdity. But this has not
reversed our election laws, although our
would make it so by his in
fallible rule of logic that if a process
can be reduced TO absurdity the reverse
must be true. But our contributor has
the vantage ground of the Supreme Court
by his declaration that law and history
and legal learning do not govern the case;
for the Court was limited by the law, and
was trammeled by legal learning and his
tory, and could not give its sympathies
nor the local political necessity the con-
troll of the case.
GRANTS UNPOPULARITY.