The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-03-01
CANNOT BE DTsFRANCHIsED.
The Other View OF the Amendment,
Relating to Suffrage.

To the Editor Of the Globe
For the past three of four months there
has been from time to time a discussion in
your valuable paper regards the effect OF
the late amendment to the constitution Of
this state regarding the qualification Of vot-
ers. While agree with the general prospective
effect and the propriety of the amendment.
l confess / am somewhat surprised that the
general opinion of the bar OF this state seems
to be that 1t has a retroactive effect and
deprives those who have heretofore been
legal voters Of this state Of their rights
and privileges as such. 1t seems to me
that this is contrary to all interpretations
of the constitution as heretofore understood.
Article 1 section 2, Of the constitution Of
this state provides that mo member OF this
state shall be disfranchised or deprived of
any Of the rights or privileges secured to
any citizen thereof except by the law Of the
land, the judgment OF his peers" The
words "by the law OF the land, or the judg-
ment Of his peers" are the very same which
are found in Magma Charta that first writ
ten grant, by which the liberty Of the Anglo
Saxon race has been secured, and the words
have been ever since construed by the courts
of England and America. 1t is not only
reasonable, it is judicially certain, that when
those words were used by the convention
which formed our constitution they were
so used in the sense given to them by the
Interpretation Of the courts.
Lord Coke, in his commentary upon this
language says that 'by the law Of the land"
law q Coke Inst. 45), and he afterwards ex-
plains the meaning to be 'by indictment and
presentment Of good and lawful men whore
such deeds be done in due manner or by
writ original of the common law" Qbd. 50).
See also Hoke Henderson. 4 Dew. North
Carolina) 1; Jones vs. Terry, 10 Yorgers
(Tennessee) 50; Story on Court, U. s., 661;
2 Kent's Commentaries 10; Taylor VS.. Por-
ter, 4 Hill 145, 146 CNew York;.
The meaning Of these provisions Of the
constitution then crearly Is as decided
in Hill 145, that no member Of the state
shall be disfranchised or deprived of any
Of his rights or privileges, unless the matter
shall be adjudged against him upon trial
according to the course Of the common law.
1t must be ascertained judicially that he
has forfeited his privileges-nothing else can
deprive him Of his rights as a voter or
Of holding Office, sitting on jurles, etc.
1 suppose that as soon as this question
should arise in any Of the courts of this
state 1t would be decided definitely, but
I perceive by article in your paper that
one Of the Judges Of the Ramsey county dis
trict court seems TO have doubted IL those
who prior to last November had been legal
voters, could now-after the adoption of the
constitutional amendment-Fbe qualified to
sit on juries in his court This rather
startled me- and 1 concluded to call atten-
ton to the other side of the question. II
you consider It Of sufficient Importance to be
inserted in your paper / could have cited
numerous other authorities, both English and
American, but as there Is no question to
be argued before the courts, l shall not take
time to hunt them UP. H w. s.
Saltwater, Feb. e. 1897.