Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1915-03-31
ONLY REAL CITIZENS
TO VOTE AT ELECTION
"MusCOda Case" Reversed by
Court That Made 1t.
Supreme Court Saves the 20 Con-
stitutional Amendments in Not
able Decision Last Week.

down a memorandum decision IN
which majority of the bench re-
versed the former decision in the
Muscoda case, relative to voting and
holding office by persons who have
only first papers. This decision came
in while primary election was In full
force in the cities of the state, and
1t is said that much confusion resulted.
In the Postel- Marcus case, that
went I'D from Muscoda, and is already
known as the "Muscoda case, " the
court held in effect that persons hold
ing first papers were entitled to hold
offices, such as trustees of a village,
and that they might vote at state,
county and town elections. This had,
incidentally, the further effect of
multiplying about 20 amendments to
the constitution and the whole founda-
ton of recent decisions, a long line
of important decisions, seemed to be
threatened.
This Muscoda case was fully re
ported in these columns at the time
of its decision, about two months
ago. In certain quarters there was
rejoicing; others looked upon the mat
ter as really injurious and very far
reaching in its effects. As it now
stands, no person who has failed to
take out full citizenship second
papers-can vote at the forthcoming
April election. Only full citizens
will be entitled to vote.
WHAT THE COURT SAYS
The following is the memorandum
of the courts opinion in the Postel-
Marcus case:
Upon the argument of the re
hearing ordered by the court it is
held:
1. That the amendment to section
1 of article of the constitution on
the question in this case, was legally
adopted.
2. That notwithstanding that fact
the judgment in the present case was
rightly affirmed because the defendant,
within a reasonable time and before
the entry Of the judgment in this
case, became a fully qualified citizen
of the United States
''An opinion will be filed at an
early date more fully setting forth
the grounds of the courts holding.
This decision, or opinion, is but a
foretaste Of a full opinion that is to
come later. But the nature and scope
of this coming decision may be anti
cipated from the memorandum above
quoted There is 10 ground for
further uncertainty.
sBy this opinion the court reverses
its decision of two months ago, given
in the case of PosteI VS.. Marcus,
when it ruled that the amendment to
the suffrage clause of the state con-
stitution was illegally adopted, for
the reason that the amendment, had
never teen spread in full upon the
journals Of both houses. After this
decision was announced, it was found
that the same defect would apply to a
large number of amendments some of
which had been considered part of
the constitution for number of
years.
\ DISSENTING OPINION.
Justice Marshall filed this opinion,
in which Justices Timlin and Vinje
concur d:
The court being a majority of the
justices. consisting OF the chier
Justice Justices Slebecker, Kirwan-
and Barnes, having announced deci
sion to the effect that in legislative
proposal of an amendment to the
constitution the proposal need net
necessarily be spead even in sub
stance, en- the journal of either house
at either session, II dissent there
from and adhere to the decision as
rendered to this extent:
The constitution, as administered
so long that the manner thereof should
be regarded by force of practice con-
struction to indicate the intent of the
trainers Of the fundamental law, re-
quires q proposal to amend the con
sitUtion TO be entered in substance on
the journal Of the house or origin at
the first session and be referred to
upon the journal of the other house in
such manner as to clearly connect
such substantial entry with such re-
ference that an entry by mere num-
Der. the number and title is not suffi-
cient, nor is an entry in extenso neces-
sary, but that a proposal which does
not at least conform as rega ds the
journal history to the indicated neces