The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1880-03-20

Dp1 nj.
"a $50 District In presenting these credentials
make the following statement: That II has be
Q ehaIged that the Senator el,ct is disqualified fro
holding office under that section of the Constitute
y which prohibits the practice Of dueling. | o
! authorized to state that The Senator has not, with
the limits OF the State of Mississippi, done any a
/, in violation OF the Constitution and Il ws Of Miss
sipp. ordained and enacted to suppress duelir
. That the Senator is satisfied in his own mind tn
o he is not disqualified from holding office, ther
fore make the following motion; That ii is Il
@ Judgment of the Senate that the oath OF office
be Administered to the Senator"
< r. Inc morton rrvailed unanimously, and M
, Humphries was sworn in by chief Justice George
Clarion.
As by the Constitution, the Senate is til
, sole judge of the ''qualiiications, return
and election of its own members" it is t
be regretted that the case of the gentl,
man from Lowndes was passed upon in
hurried manner, and manifestly withou
full consideration.
Senators owed it to themselves to hay
pursued different course. The questio
was one of which they alone had jurlsdc
ton, and each having taken an oath tina
ne would faithfully support and tru
allegiance bear to the Constitution of til
State of Mississippi" it was the imperativ
and solemn duty of each, yigilanty tt
guard that instrument and not permit an,
probable infraction of it, to pass withou
scrutiny and unnoticed.
1t is not denied that the gentleman il
question, some time last summer, whilst
citizen of the State and a candidate for the
seat he now fills, accepted challenge anC
fought 4 duel in Alabama with Il Mr.
Moore, who was his fellow-citizcn anC
county-man.
1t is alleged that Col Humphries left the
State on other business, and not contem.
plating a challenge or duel. Conceding
this to be true, it will be seen in the sequel
that the fact is without significance OIL
bearing on the question: Was he not by
that duel disqualified from holding office in
this State? The 9th Sec, Art. of the
Constitution is in these words:
''No PERSONS life shall be pered by the Practice
OF ducing; and any person who shall hereaft er
fight duel, or assist in the same as second, or
send accept or knowingly carry a challenge there
for, or go out Of the S.ate to fight duel, shall he
disqualified from holding any ofiic, under this
Constitution, and shall forever be distinguished in
this State"
This provision is to be taken in connec-
ton with the Goth Sec, Art. II of the Con-
stitution, which is as follows.
"Members of the Legislature, and al! other Off
elected or appointed to any office in this State
shall before entering upon the discharge of the
duties thereof, take and subscribe the following
oath of office
r., do swear, (or affirm That [ will faithful
ly support and true allegiance bear to the Constitu-
sippi, and obey the laws thereof that am not dis
qualified from hold ng office by the Constitution Of
the United States, the State Of Mississippi; that
will faithfully discharge the duties Of the office
upon which | am about to enter, So help me God"
The case of the gentleman from Lowndes
certainly falls within the letter of the Con-
stitution. He did, whilst citizen of the
State, and a candidate for the State Senate,
accept a challenge and fight a duel, the
Constitution expressly declaring that any
porso -EEI.Loll be dlsquallhed rom motoring
any Office under this. Constitution, and
shall forever be disfranchised in this State"
Had this duel occurred in the State, it is
admitted by all that it would have worked
a disqualification for holding office, and
the disfranchisement of the gentleman from
Lowdes; but as he was at the time citi-
zen of the State, owing allegiance to its
Constitution and laws, the locality Of the
duel, on his return to the State, became an
circumstance.
1t is conceded that as II general rule,
penal laws have no extra territorial
operation: that is, the laws of the State
defining and affiXng punishment to crimes
are to be held to include only crime COM
mitted in the State. But this, us u citizen, |
to the State, is question of
intention and not power. Moreover, the |
regulation of suffrage and eligibility to
office is not apenal, but purely civil matter
England has repeatedly punished her
own citizens for acts committed on foreign |
soil, and there is no sovereignty or State |
which does not hold the doctrine that ''an |
offence may be committed in one sovereign |
ty in violation of the laws of another, and
If the offender be afterwards found in the |
latter State, he may be punished accord |
ing to the laws thereof, and the fact that |
he owes allegiance to another sovereignty |
Is no bar to the Indictment" Story on
Conflict of Laws, Sth edition, Sec. 625, b.
This principal is recognized in the case of
State, etc, VS.. Main, 1G Wis, r., p. p. 443-4,
in these terms
at seems to lie well established that every
nation has the right to punish its own citizens for
the violation of its laws wherever committed |
This right is based upon the duty Of allegiance, and
i es not rest npJn the assumption that one state
,an extend its laws into another, so as to make |
hem directly operative there, or impose any Obli-
cation on such other State to observe them or give
my effect to them; but merely that they may he
binding upon the citizen of tho State
which enacts them and justify his p nshment for
heir violation by such State when he returns
within its limits" See also the People vs.. Tyler,
s$. '' --' '' ' ~
Even concluding then, that the anti-du-
cling policy of the constitution is in the
nature of a penalty, it is rs binding upon
he citizen of the State, intending to return
% it, without as within its limits; and
when citizen, temporarily absent, enga-
res in duel, he is not warranted on his
'eturn home to swear that he sis not dis
lualified from holding office by the consti-
utiop of the State of Mississippi" To
axe this oath under such cireumstaces is
o swer, when the fact is otherwise, that
le has not given or accepted Il challenge
ince the present constitution of the State
vas adopted. Indeed this principle eX-
ends not only to citizens temporarily
bSent from their nation or state, but to
uch as may be in business and domiciIed
broad without having relinquishcd their
ormer citizenship, for ''It is true that ma
ions generally assert claim to regulate
he rights and duties and obligations and
cts Of their own citizens wherever they
nay be domiciled. And so far as these
lights, duties, obligations and acts after
Yards come under the cOgnizance of the
tribunals of the sovereign power of their
wn country, either for enforcement, or
Or remedy, there may be no just ground to
xclude this claim" Story's Conflict L..
&c. $40.
But the provisions of the constitution
lakng duelling a disqualification. are not
f criminal or penal character. Suffrage {
nd eligibility to office are not natural but
rights, and their regulation (
V any State is strictly civil matter, in
to what Is criminal or
enal. As well might it be said that the
xclusion of females and children from :
nffrage and office, was penal inflictiOn, q
5 that the denial of these privileges to |
uelsts was a punishment. Loyal vs.. :
homas, 2S Grattan 100. State vs.. Gambler, {
Haws, n. c., 40l.
As civil regulation and matter of state
oliey, the Constitution declared that all J
ersons shall be ineligible TO Office and
enied the right of suffrage ''who shall
ave been convicted of bribery, perjury or l
ther infamous crime" aud by law a party
Dnvicted of perjury is not allowed to testi- :
as a witness i'm any court and the con- q
ietiOn of any infamous crime under the :
Iws of another State. or of the United G
tates. stands on the same footing con- Q
iction under the laws Of this State. 3
awks. 3g3-l0 New Hampshire, 22-Com-
Ionwealth VS.. Knapp, 8 Piekering-Jones
5. Board Of Registrars Of AlcOrn county,
J Miss, 766. Ii then a citizen Of this a
tate, convicted in Alabama under the o
ws Of Alabama, Of an Infamous crime. {
ould be disfFanchised and prescribed in
lis state AS though such conviction had oc-
lrred in this State. fOrtiOri, it must follow
lat By virtue Of the anti-duelIng proyis- v
ms Of the Constitution. a citizen Of this 4
tate fighting duel in Alabama, is thereby a
from holding any Office under .,
is lour) Constitution, aud shall forever
, disfranchised in this state" In apply I I
II this principle in the Chandler (N. - y
Ise, the Court say: In doing this we U