Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

General was that it would not be constitutional to pass a law before the Constitution was amended so as to allow it. Both Houses then passed a resolution to adjourn on May 5 until August 23 "for the purpose of receiving and counting the votes on the proposed amendments to the Constitution, and of passing such laws only as may be necessary to carry the same into effect." 1

On April 30, the bill was reported from the Judiciary Committee in a new draft, and on May 3 it was moved to suspend the rules and consider the bill. Whereupon it was moved to adjourn, which was negatived, and the House then refused to suspend the rules by a vote of 46 to 36, two-thirds not voting in the affirmative. On May 5, the Legislature adjourned until August 23, but the Confederate raid into the State, and the pillage of Chambersburg by the Confederates on July 30, caused the Governor to call a special session of the Legislature on August 9, 1864. At this session, on August 23, 1864, the votes of the people on the amendment were canvassed by the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate. There were, for the amendment, 199,855, against it, 105,352. In the Democratic counties of the State the majorities against the amendment were 8,611; in the Republican counties the majorities for the amendment were 42,487. In short, the people divided upon the amendment substantially upon party lines, the Democrats being opposed to it, and the Republicans being for it.2

On August 23, 1864, the soldiers' voting bill was considered by the House. An amendment was offered and voted down, 40 to 42. A motion to adjourn was

1 House Journal, 1864, p. 627.

2 Ibid., pp. 1088, 1098.

then made and voted down, 30 to 53. Another amendment was then offered and voted down, 41 to 43. Numerous other amendments were proposed and voted down by about the same majority. On August 24, the bill was again considered, and numerous amendments were offered, most of which were voted down by the same majorities as before. Finally the bill was passed by a vote of 49 Republican yeas, to 41 Democratic nays, and the bill was returned to the Senate.

The Senate non-concurred in the House amendments to the bill, and asked for a committee of conference, which was appointed and on August 24th the committee of conference reported that the House should recede from certain amendments to the bill, and that the Senate should concur in the other amendments, and the report was adopted and the bill passed.

August 25, Governor Curtin signed the bill, saying in a message sent to the House that he had no time to examine it, but presumed that the conditions of the bill had been wisely and carefully framed and considered by the Legislature.1

The Act was entitled "An Act to regulate elections by soldiers in actual military service," and provided that any qualified electors absent in actual military service on the days appointed for "holding the general or presidential elections within the State," should be entitled at such times to exercise the right of suffrage as fully as if they were present at their usual places of election, whether they should be within the limits of the State or not. It provided that a poll should be opened in each company composed in whole or in part of Pennsylvania

1 House Journal, 1864, pp. 510, 519, 769, 1018, 1196, 1205, 1207, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1218, 1225, 1233, 1235, 1240, 1249.

soldiers, at the quarters of the captain or other officer thereof; and all soldiers belonging to such company who should be within one mile of such quarters on the day of election, and not prevented by orders of their commander, or proximity of the enemy, from returning to their company quarters, should vote at such poll, and at no other place. It also provided that ten or more soldiers unable to attend a company might vote at such place as they might select, and provided that where there were soldiers less than ten in number separated from their proper company, or in any hospitals, navy-yards, vessels, or on provost or other duty, whether within or without the State of Pennsylvania, they should have a right to vote by proxy, that is, practically by putting their votes in an envelope, sealing them up and directing them to some person at home to cast them for them, substantially in the same way in which all soldiers of New York were required to vote.

This act occupies ten pages in the Statutes, and is very elaborate. It provided that the Judges to whom tickets are delivered at a poll of the company should call the name of the soldier "with an audible voice." It also provided for the appointment of commissioners by the Governor to deliver the act, and poll box, lists, and blank returns to the commanding officers, etc.

The act also contained a provision that the assessors should assess a county tax of ten cents upon each non-commissioned officer and private and the usual tax upon every commissioned officer known by them to be in the military service of the United States, and when any omission occurred the omitted names should be added by the assessors to the assessments and list of voters, upon the application of any

citizen of the election district or precinct wherein the soldier had a right to vote, and such non-commissioned officers and privates should be exempt from all other personal taxes during their continuance in such service. This was to cover the requirement of the third Article of the Constitution which made the payment of a tax a prerequisite to the right to vote.1

The voting act of 1864, authorized voting in the field only at general elections, that is, for State officers, and on January 22, 1865, an act was passed providing for "proxy voting by soldiers in the field during the continuance of the present rebellion' in the City elections of Lancaster and Harrisburg.2 None of these soldiers' voting acts are in the Digest of 1872.

[ocr errors]

The votes of the soldiers in Pennsylvania in 1861, who were in Pennsylvania to vote and did vote, were 11,351 Republican, and 3,173 Democratic, making a Union majority of 8,178. In 1862 only a few regiments and companies remained in the State and voted. At the October election they cast 1,867 Republican votes, and 251 Democratic, making a Union majority of 1616.

After the Soldiers' Voting Act was passed there were two elections in 1864. At the October election, the soldiers' vote was 17,888 for the Republican candidates, and 5,232 for the Democratic candidates, being a Republican majority of 12,656.3 majority of 12,656. At the November election the soldiers' vote was 26,712 for Lincoln electors, and 12,349 for McClellan electors, a total of 39,061, or about seven per cent. of the total vote of the State, which was 572, 697.

1 Laws of Pennsylvania, 1864, p. 990.

2 Laws of Pennsylvania, 1865, p. 74.
New York Tribune, November 1, 1864.

IN

CHAPTER XXII

NEW HAMPSHIRE

N 1863 New Hampshire was a very close state. A majority of 9,115 for Lincoln in 1860 had shrunk to 3,584 in 1862, and to a plurality of only 574 in 1863. As the constitution required a majority there was no election of Governor by the people that year, and a Republican Governor was elected by the Legislature, which was safely Republican, by a majority of 49 in its House, and two thirds in its Senate of 12 members.

It seemed quite likely that the soldiers' vote, if it could be cast, might control the next election. Indeed, the majority of that vote cast in the field and reported and counted at the presidential election of 1864, was 1,376, which, it will be seen, was quite sufficient to control the state, upon the vote of 1863. The matter of a soldiers' voting bill had been discussed before the people in 1863, and in his message to the June session of the Legislature of that year, Governor Gilmore recommended a soldiers' voting bill, and said:

“I am informed that during the present session a bill will be introduced to your notice that shall confer upon the soldiers of New Hampshire in the field the privilege of voting while absent from their place of residence. This measure has seemed to commend itself to the people of this State on all sides of political opinion. Several of the states have already adopted similar provisions and I have no doubt that the consideration of our state will sanction

« AnteriorContinuar »