LEGISLATURE, 1864. } SENATE DOC. [ No. 1.] REPORT of the Minority of the Select Committee on Soldiers' Suffrage. The undersigned, minority of the select committee on soldiers' suffrage, to whom was referred a bill to enable the qualified electors of this State in the military service, to vote at certain elections, &c., would respectfully report that he has had the same under consideration, and is of the opinion that while the provisions of this bill are such as to accomplish the desired object, in a more direct and less complicated manner, it is equally free from constitutional objections, with the bill reported as a substitute by the majority of this committee. Disclaiming any special anxiety for the passage of a particular bill, the undersigned is only desirous for the adoption of such measures as will best secure the desired result; and with this object in view, a brief examination of the principles involved in this bill may not be out of place. At the last session of the Legislature this bill was introduced by the undersigned, and was referred to the committee on privileges and elections. That committee, in a very able report, considered the arguments for and against the measure; but re ported the bill back to the Senate without recommendation. The bill was then placed upon the general order, and referred to the committee of the whole; but after some discussion, it was reported back and referred to the judiciary committee, who were afterwards discharged from its further consideration, and the bill was referred to the Attorney General, for his opinion of its constitutionality. The Attorney General submitted a very excellent opinion, sustaining, in full, the constitutionality of the measure. The same bill was afterwards introduced into the House, and referred to the committee on elections. This committee, in an elaborate and carefully written report, concluded that the measure was unconstitutional and impracticable, and recommended that the "bill do not pass." The bill was tabled. But on the report of the minority of that committee recommending that it do pass, the bill was taken from the table, and passed by a vote of 50 to 33. The bill failed to reach final action in the Senate. It is but reasonable to suppose that the two reports referred to, the one made without recommendation and the other recommending that it do not pass, contain the material objections to the measure entertained by members of the Legislature. These objections may be stated thus: 1st. That under our constitution "every elector must reside in the township or ward in which he offers to vote; and vice versa, every elector must offer his vote in the township or ward in which he resides and not elsewhere.” 2d. That "we can pass no election or other laws that will be of any binding authority outside of the State, or over the soldiers, officers or armies of the United States." 3d. It is inexpedient to allow soldiers to vote. In discussing the first part of the subject, embracing the constitutional question, many of the opposers of the measure have fallen into the error of considering the constitution of a State a granting instead of a limiting power. And all of the most earnest arguments from that side have been founded upon these erroneous premises. The majority of the committee on elections in the House, in their report, state "that section 5 of the same article (article 7) of the constitution, which declares that 'no elector shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his being employed in the service of the United States or of this State, nor while a student in any seminary of learning, &c.' was neither intended to, nor does it, in the opinion of your committee, give to such person, so engaged in the service of the United States, or attending a seminary of learning, the right to vote in any other place than that in which he is a resident." Again, in the same report, the committee say: "to have intended the provisions of said section five, as authorizing the several classes of persons therein named, to vote wherever they might happen to be on election day, would be putting it in the power, frequently, of persons having no interest in the local affairs, or officers of the town or ward, where they were temporarily stopping, of controlling the elections of such town or ward, and overruling the wishes of permanent residents." In these extracts the committee appear to assume that the Legislature has only such power as is granted in the constitution, and that if a person could deposit a vote for the officers of the county of his residence, while out of that county, he could vote at and aid in controlling the elections of other towns or wards where he happened to be, away from the place of his residence. In the report already referred to, by the committee of the Senate on privileges and elections, we find this language: "It is very difficult to believe that the framers of our constitution, or the people in their ratification of the same, intended to make provision for, or authorize the passage of any such law as is contained in this bill. Had they intended to grant such authority, or license, it is believed that they would have expressed such intention more explicitly, and in language well defined." If it really required, in express terms, constitutional license, to enable the Legislature of a State to pass a law, then, indeed, the friends of this measure might despair of being able to extend to the defenders of the nation the freeman's right of a voice in the affairs of its government. But it is believed to be well established by all of the elementary writers upon constitutional law, that all power vests in the people, and that the constitution of a State is a limiting, and not a grant of power. And that the Legislature of a State, as a municipal organization, has a right to pass any law the public interest may require which is not prohibited by the constitution. In the case of "The State of Iowa ex rel. Wilson vs. Burt;" same ex. rel. O'Neal vs. Watson, the Supreme Court of Iowa affirm the doctrine that "the constitution, as applied to the legislative department, is a limitation and not a grant of power; or in other words, if the Legislature is not restricted, it has full power to provide who shall have the right of suffrage, and prescribe the place, time and manner of its exercise. For the Legislature clearly has the power to legislate on all rightful subjects of legislation, unless expressly prohibited from so doing, or where the prohibition is implied from some express provision. This theory must never be lost sight of by the courts, in examining the powers of the Legislature. It is elementary, cardinal, and possesses frequently, controlling weight in determining the constitutional validity of their enactments." In the light of these principles, let us examine our constitution and see if we are prohibited from extending to soldiers the right to vote while in service. It is believed to be admitted by all parties, that a soldier does not lose a residence by reason of being absent in the army. He has the same rights, so far as all questions of residence is concerned, he would have if he never entered the army or left home. Then, if there is any prohibition applicable to this measure, it must be contained in section 1, of article 7, of the constitution, which declares "that no citizen or inhabitant shall be an elector, or entitled to vote at any election, unless he has resided in this State three months, and in the township or ward in which |