The Soldiers' Voting Law

The Peoplo on the relation of Daniol S. Tvvitchell vs. Amos C. Blodget, A legislativo enactnient beiug attaoked in this case as opposed to the fundtuneiit;il luw oi the State, it becornea neceiaary not only to examine it in the light of that fundamental law, but algo to con sider once more soiue of the rules of coustruction which are to apply when a eourt is called upon to pi.-rfonn so sol emn an act as to nulliiy the aetion of a oo-ordinate departinent of the Govern inent, on the ground that it hasoxceeded its constitutional iurisdiction. It is conceded to be the settled doctrine of 'tbis State, that every enaotmont of the State Legislature is preHumed to bo constitutionii, and valid; that btfore we can pronounce it otherWise, we must ba uble to poiut out the precise clutise in the Ccnstitution which it violates ; and that the conflict betwoen the two must be olear or free f rum reasonable doubt, since it is only from constitutioaal provisioos, iimiting the legislaüve power aod controlling iha legislativo will, that we derive authority lo declare void any legislatïve enactnient. People tos. Gaf lag her, 4 Mich. 244, Sears vs. CottreU, 5 Mich. 251; Tyhr vs, The People, 8 Micb. 233. And the rule so well Bettled liere is not left in doubt by decisions elsewhere. It is contended, however, by the counsel for the respondent, that the leasonable doubts of couflict upon which a court may act in refusing to set aside a law, must be doubts wliich spring from a consideraron of the law after the meaning of the Constitution bas been judicially determined ; that the first duiy of the court is to construe the clause in the Constitution, supposed to be violated, and haviug, through whatever doubts rnay have exisied, arivanced to a conviction of its purpose and meaning, to ihen upply the law to the purpose and meaning thus determined, and annul it, unless there reimtin a reasooable doubt of the conflict, Any other mie, it is said, may leave the meaning of a eiause in the Constitution uuse'.tW ; making it oue thiug at one time, another ut auother, acCörding to the varyiug cortstructions of the legislative department. That there is sotne force in ihis argument is unques ionable; hut a very slight cxamination vill show that if the eourts were to adont it, and were in all cases to first fix and eettle definitely upon tho meaning of the consMtutional provieions which ure questioncd, the rule of construetion whioh required a legislativa act to be presumed valid, would be greatly weakened i{ not eutirely overthrown. For the rule itself proceeds upon the idea that the legislative construclion is to be presumed correct uriti] the cootrary satisfactorily uppóars, and thal the courts are to bow to that óhstfuction wben embodied in the iorrn of law, exi-ept where the law and the Constilutiou are so plaiuly in confilct that the two eannot stand togeUier. When, thereïore, a rcpugnnncy is clui.med eo exist btftween Ihein, courts must examine and constrno the piDvisiuns of each 10 the light of the other, and they must suslain :he law if they have rcasonable doubts oi the conflict, even thoueh the donbts spring from the cnnntructioo of ihe Cnnstitution itself. Sun Mutual Insurance Co. vs. City of New York, 5 Sanf. 14; Clark is. the People, 26 Wend., 606; Mayor etc., City of Bal timore vs. The State, l'i Md., 457-8. The evils that may spring from this rulo are not so great as might be imagined ; lor wben constructioo has once been placed on a constitutional provisión, it it) reasonable to expect that it will be followed even though its original adoption may uavo pprung froni deference to legislative action, rather than from settle convictioDs in the judicial miiid. In the case beiore us the precise portion of the Oonstitution alleged to be violated, is poinlüd out, and the repuguanc.y is clairned to be cleur. It is the firnt seelion of urlicle seven of the ConstitulioQ, vvhich, after provïdiag wlutt eitizen and inh'a'bilánts shall be electora and enlitled to vote, proceedn : " B ut no citizen or nhnbitant bhall be an elector and entitled to vote at any election, unless he shall be above the age ei' twènty-ono years, and han resided in this State t'hree months, and in the O4'tibfp or v.'ard in whu-ii lie offV-rs to vote, ten days next preeetÜBg sucii eleoiion." The act which is nupposed to conflict with thia seotjon, is the act approved Fëbïaary 6, 18 4, enlitled, ::An act to enable the qualilied electors of this State, in tht; military service, to vote at ci;rt in ■lcctions, aud to arnend sections forty-live and sixly-one of chapter ix of the Goni)lied Lañé'." The general }ui'i os-e of this ac! wiis to enablo the electora of the State who wero absent Irom their pla:-es of renidence in the miii'.ary service of the United States, or of tbis State, to jeroise the right of sjffrage in all the general elections of the State, notwilhstanding such absence. 1 hall state its provi.-ions sufEcieutly for the purposes of this case, if I gay thüt it amhorizes polls to be opened wherever a Michigan regiment or other organized body of soldiers may be, within or without the Statu, on the day fixed for the general election, at whioh such eleotors may doposit their ballota for all the officeii to be voted for at eaöb election, Kpecifyias on the bullóte the comity and lownship or ward for whieh each elector claim3 to vote ; that it providee for returns f rom these polls to the State cunvassers to whom tho original ballots are alao to be sent ; tbat it then direots the State cauvassers to prejwra an itbstract oï tbce turus, and truueinit to each couuty and diolriet board of eanvansers, a statement of tho votos cast by electora resident in such county or district for the various county and district officers ; and that it rnukea farther provisión for the canviiss by tho State officers, ai:d by tho county iiiid district boards of thobe for county and district offioers respeotively. Prov'tsious are also made to secure the electiva lninchise agaiu9t Iraudnlent practices, os well by those wbo exereise it, as by any other persons. Th is law is elaimed to be unconatitu tiona], because it 8 said, the latter par of the aection above quoted from the Oonstitution, requires the personal pres enoe of the elector in tho township or ward in which he resides nt the time o asserting his riglit to vote, On the other hand, it ia evident that the law proceeds upon the idea that the place whero the elector ahall be when he öXercisea the right of suffrage, in Kil the. general eleotions of the State at least, is not fixed by this suction ; and counsel for the relator, contend that it only prescribes the qualifications of electors, leavlog the condiiions under which they fihall exerciae their right to be fixed by the Legislatura. With these oonflicting constructions before us, the eouossl for the respondent have pressed upon us the history of this constkutional provisión, in the belief ihnt it will, with much concia siveness, determine the construction oí the section, by giving us the original clause, the evil that existed under it, the ohunge to corroot thut evil, and the intent oí the subsequenl öiodificatirtns, whioli must have been mude vvith the evil ia view, and witli the purposu to continue the safeguard against it. Tbat such history may be loolfed to for this purpose, and the proceedingt of the constitucional oonvention examinad Lu the endeavor to discover the probable intention of the immers of the Coustitutioj) as we now fiud it, is well settled. Clark vs. the People, 36 Wend., G02, per Walworth, Chaucellor. We find, then, on looking into this history, that the Constitution of 1835, after fixiug the qualitications of electora, added the negativo 'clause, that "no such citizen or inhabitanl ahall be entitled to vctfe, excopt in the dibtriot, county or township in which he shall actually re side at the time of such election." (Art 2, 1.) The evil supposed to exist under tho provisión was, thaü an elector inight vote anywhere íd the eltotion dis triot, and hs the district for the election of State offi.-ers was the vvhole State, and county officera the whole county, he might Fof those officers vote auy vvhero in the State or county, as he might also for member of Congress nny where io tho Congressional district ; and the usual gufeguards, by challenge, ote, were rendered of littlo valué, f he aaw fit to vote where personally uuknown. The people romedied that e'vil öy an mendment adopted in 1839, which substituted for the words "district, county or township," the words 'tovvnship or ward,'' thus clearly requiring ihe personal presence of the elec.or in the township or ward of kis esidence as a condition of the right to vote. Thus stood the seetion at the time the Constitutional Conveut'on of 1850 met. And here I must remark, tho light to be derived froin an exarnination of the proceedings of oonstuutional conventions,on the question of constitutional ei nstruction is comrronly vague and iuconclusive, aud not to be llowed, ia any case, to control the meaning of unambiguou8 term.0. And 1 have parefully exainined the proceedings of this convetition in reference to this provis'on, and. have come to the conclusión that, whiTé a plausible argument may be drawn thfcrelrom, that the convention designedlo retain the priuciple introduced by the atnendment of 1830, one equally plausible is afforded, that it was designed to be abanduned. I do not present the consideratious whioh lead us to thie conclusión here, as they are unimportant to a decisión, and I allude to them only to show how litlle reliancu can be safely placed upon such evidence. If, however, by nn examination of these proceedings, we bad succeeded in ascerlaining defioitely the iuter.t of the oonventin, we might still be kir front) the intent of the people in adopting tht-ir vork. Tliat thfaemt siüiuld be gathered from the words embraced in the instniment as udopted, il those words ure l'ree from doubt. ïhe peo pie in passing npon itlooked only to the cl;m-es us they tben stood, without truubling themselves with the contiiderations or the accidental circumslann s that may have bronghl tfaem to theii pi'esent form. What we have learned, then, in oir exaniinntion of tTie history of this subject, th;t there was an evil oxisting tinder the old constitution, which w;is obviated by adopting tho principie that the elector fcshould vote in pursoti, iu the township or ward of his. residenco. We are now to iscertain, from the words employed in the claus as it stands, whether this principie it retainedj or whelher on the other hand, a de eign is apparent to discard it. 1 hazaid noth'mg in sying that the first impreseion to strike the mind on reading the "in which he offers to vote," is, that it is synonymous with "in which he pcrsonally presenta his ballot." Few persons, il' any, would be irnmodinte'y mpressed-that the words were ambiguous, and might mean somothing elso. Still fewer would discover in them uch an evident purpose to diseard ihe prin ciple ot the atnendment of 1839, as would be naturally expected to appear if the purpose existed. If I am right in this, then further exarnination with a view to firid sorne otbtr and m'Tí pubtle ' ineanintr, ouglit to bo rriadö witU ex jreme oaotíoot, lest we dccuive ourselves into diaregurding the pkiin and obvious Bense for some óther wlnch ouly ingeuuity diacovera or stiggests. ThÜré are cerïain well settled rules for the construction of ttatuies, whieh no court can sifly dwregard. Wheo tha statute i.s phiiu nnd uniimbignous in itsterins, the cnurta Lave nothing to do but to obey it. íliey may give a sensible and rcasoüable interpre.' a'ion to legilative oxpreseiona whi'-h ure obscuro, but thev have no rit; rj t to distort those which are clear and itltwllgi.ble. Thu fair and natural import, of tlio terms eiuployod, in view oí' tho subject matter of the law, ia what should j ern. BartleUvt. Mo:ris, 9 Port. 266 ;! Wdkinson vs. Leiand, 3 Pet, 662 ; Hobrook vs. Holbrook, 1 Piek. 250; Pearce vt. Atwood, 13 Maiss. S42-4 ; Barker vs Esty, 19 Vt. 131; Ezeki-l vs. Dixon, 3 HèUey, 146. These rules aro especial!}' applieable to Constitutions. For the peoplu, in pasñpg upon them, do nut examino their olauses witfi a view to diacover a secret or a doublé ineanin;, but accept j Ibe most natural and obvious import of the word8 as the meaning designed to be conveved. They will rutify an Htruinent in tliis sense, even though it may have been draw o and adopted by the convention in some other. But tbe argument for the relator is thus stated by liia counsel: '' The expressand evident object of this sect'oa is to prescribo the quaificaüons of ?lec tors. Alter doing so generally, it is added in the nature of a proviso, that thf;y shull not be deemed such tlectors ïu any other district than that of their residence. The al ernaüve is, any other lownskip or ward - that thu eleetor's vote shall be received acd have effect in ;he township or ward of his residonie. [t was intended to prohibit the pi actico f votiug for State ofíicers, etc., m somc other district, and to prevent soldiers, sailors, etc, iüfluencing and contmlling the local government of places whcre they happen to be, as had often been attempted, on the ono hand, and kt) ■reserve the full franchine of ci'.izei.sh; at their proper place of res'dence, on the other. Tbcre is no attempt to prescribe anything ooncerning tlie single faut of Ihe bodily presence of the person. Tlie substantiul provisión is, thut tho elector shall have resided in his township or warj teu dajr, and not that he shall vote in any particular manner." And thiis view is suppo.sed to be so far fortifi:d by adjudgod cases I that the Oourt ma)' well adopt i' as the ; rule of decisión here, even if not fully agiebing with it. We are referred to dnoisions npon lawn passad to ac3nmplih tho sarrio purpose as this, whioh have beer. mide )y the Courts of Pennsvlvanla, Connecticiit, N(W Hampshire, Verrnont, O int Wisuonsi'i, Iowa and Culilbruia, sevtüal of which have sustaiued legislativo provisions for taking the votes of electora oul uf the State. Oue natura ly ooines to an exainination of these cases in Ihe expeutation of finding them some.vl a ipalognas to the une bt'fore us, hut a earefttl exainination of th m all coin)ol us to pay that the Coastjtutioua under whioh these deuisions were madn, veré so different frotn our own that no one of them will support the law hero Under disuussiou. 1 have no bcBitation in holding that when the time, place ai.d marnier of lolding eleotious are not prcscribed bj ;he CoDStitution, they are withiu the iseretioQ of the Legishiture, ai.d the eception of votes from p rsons aetuully ut of the electiun district, or even of( hü Sta e, may be allowed by statute. Applying this principie to the Constitu ions of Uhio and Wiscnnsiu, we caunot well doubt the validity of their statutes ; nd I regard the deeisons made to thai fiect as eDtirely correct and s.itisfacory. The New England opiinoiis, on he other hand, which hold similar laws j uvalid, are based upon C ustitutional ! jrovisiom clearly fixing their locality, ! ind their correctuess is ejua'ly beyoud , aispute. Nu oue of these djudioatioiiB ' has ary bearirg upOD the qut-stiou fora u. Thero is more grouml f.r supposuig that thö decisión of the Supremo Court of lowu is iu puint, and if 1 could find that it was so, I hhnuld hosit;ite long before corning to a oouclusion diructlj posed to that of fo able a Court. The olause in the Constituties if that State ' under which the ques'ion ai os9 was as follows : " Evcry white nüle oitizea of; the United States of the ug.) o{ twei:ty Óne yjars, who aliall have ben a resi j dunt of this State, six inonths 6e 't oeding the elcetion, and of tho c uuty in which he claims his vote sixty cJaf, I elnill be entitled to voto at all elections j which are now, or may be, authorized by l'iw." The difference between thi.? ciiiue and that in our ConeUtution, 60 far as hero material, is that ours requires a rt'sidenye ''in tho tonuship or ward ín whio'a he oft'eis to vote," and that of Iowa requires un elector to be a residunt of "the couuty in whiuli lie claims his voto." Thei-e is th;i dilluience as to ihs: district botweeu ''townsMp or ward" and , " county," and the difference betweon " ofl'ering to vote" and " claiiuiiig his voto." I huil not stop to remark upon this diflrence ; for though I agree in ; I tho distinction taken by the Supremo ' Court of lowa, yet i! is not uecessary to j comrnent upon or criticully co!)sidtr the meauiug of eitch, sinee if the phrase liad ; had been " claims his vo'.e," insteud of i " offers his votf," in our Constitu iou, I thiuk the result iu ihis case raubt stül ' have been the sauiü. But the diffcreuio betweeo the two ConstituiiQiis as to dibtnot, is more iin! portant in the es'imir.ation of the lav. TLO law iteelf, a wa are told, i oopied fr-m tbst "f lown. ar.d mus: h:ir as ■u no i t at thj two 0 'i. t tut us w ra eübstantiaUy iduni.ca!. lint when wo como to put upon the plirasn "offers to v to" tho saij!'! ipeaoigg giv(u by tlia oo :rl. u low;, to ihe vvorls 'Main his ote " we shull find that tina iii-aniug, ;pp ied to tb is law, wil] not sustain it. - l'o tliere is iio provisi n ip Ihis lnw anyvrh'.'re t!at "th ' soldier's vote sLall bo reocived aud havo effect in the (ownship or wurd of his rsüideucc," The voles are uevc:r to b returned to thy township or wavd, and iievur bive effect ihere.-As tlii! law does nut pp'y to tortiship electors, nu township offinerR can ba elocted lindar i, Th( vo'es are cnvnssod by Síato, coun'y aud diftriot cauvasserg, but uover by township or ward caov-:,iBcr.i. They Imve affect u dis'riots, but uot n tjwurhpM; and the votes o. -at abn ad by tlic uleolora oí one township ia a d; t.ict, a-o lo be cou ted and "have effeet" in that distiiet with and in all respeoís líko votes c:ist in any other township in tbo s::tnc district. To Hold that Ihis satisfies tho ineaning of the CoiistilutioD would be to hold that the words ''township or ward' are synonyraous with "district," and that the changa of terms made by the amendmont in the old Cocf titution, for he avowed purposa of chaugiiig the efleot, did not alter the ooustruetiüu. The law proceeds all tha wav throngh on the idea of recoguizing only the election district of the State, tor all the purposes of ieceiving, oounting and giving effect to the votes. Tho township or vvard residenca is iudeed takeu notice of for the purposes of regis try, r.nd the Büldier is rcquired to state it up'iii bis ballot; bul this inight have been rcquired under the Oonstitution of 1835, when the elector was claimiüg hi right anywhere in tho district. We caiiuof, thereforo, regtsrd the polla oponed under this law as township and ward polls, as has been suggested to us. They are net township or ward polls ia sny sense. Thsy are State polls, at vvhich electora from all parta of the State are to deposit their b Ilota together, to be 03uuted at these State polls, but to bo finally cauvassed and have effect ia j the several eU-ctioii distriots, aud uot iu I the townships or vvards. And the decisión wliich eustaitis the Iowa law eanoot bo made to sustain the one in qaegtion, in view of thu plaiu diflvreneo iu result between tho words "district, couüty, or township'' aud ''towuship or ward," daf igned to be p oduced in the substitution uf the latter for the former iu the Constitution. Atteution was called to tho argument in respect to a supposed legialative constructiou of tliia coustitulional provisión by fortner !aws, and wo were pointed to eeveral" enaoticents authorizing certain touships to bold their towuahip eleoti nis within the limits of cities whioh had been so curved out of their territory as to render it inconveuient to hold thetn elsuwhere. So far as I kno, these enaotiiiüuts wero adoptüd without speciul attontion being callad to th8 quüstion, and I cao well couoeive that tha person diaftiag them might suppose the word ''township'' could be conutrued to includa territorj carved out of the township liuiits, and still enciroled by it. I have esamined these luws and thiuk it appaieut ihat ibis was preoisely the consiruotiou placed upon them. For whila each of them auihorizes a township oleotion to be hold outsido of the townihip, no ohauge is aiade ia the general law as lo the oaths to bu id'.iiiiiisiered to a pers m chatieiiged, and undor that law he would be required whilo standing at the polls within the oi y liraitH, to makeoatb, that hö is "a resldeat of th to'cmhip" - the lowüship whure he stands, áee La,w óf 1859 pp Ü91 and 875, Lam of 1861, p. 365, and coiiipnre Uoupiled Lact, Ó29 and 49. But if tb je l&ws were-valid they could have little force on a question of oons itu'ionul cons'ruction. They are net oote:uporuneoiis expo.-itions, and in my opiuiou they elear y conflict with Invs which wt;re cetemporaneous, and w'aich expresssd the u:iderstinclmg, ná weil of tlie Le;islu.tu:o &: ïf "&o peopW.jr I rufur to the electioa laws pasied iii 1851 to give fffeot to this' vory sectioD, and vrliich, in thü oaths they require, plaiuly declure a constructioti requiriug thopjrsooal pi-epence o( tha eleotor in the towu hip ót wurd of bis riidenco at the ti:ne of te ideriog Ha vcie for reoeptiou. Comp. Law?. 49 and 128 It is clear that tho LSgUUtü6 in reuiriog the prsoü, cbsll'üp'ed to mako oatb that be resides "m this toimship or warcT' d d D)t under.stiii.d tl, al vLey vrere aunexing lo tí:e rigiit of uffraga say cjliditiun Djiil rcquii ei! by the Conatitiition, fur ihg itispectors are fifít to úcílaro to suc'a persoü "the cónslitutioual q:utliño-ktiaa%" aiJ f he oiith is to te adminisfercd if ho cl.iiüki to [-vssots i'üO'.n. 1 haveleft entirely out of vicwiu thia diaoosBÍDD till quöstions oi' ezpjdienoy Ou beUinging cxclufirely to the lgi-la {$ department. Not ia the leist doubtiu thit tbe jHolivos Ktiit-h uiiiiicd tbis luwr weie mre, (lm the ca e wiib vbioh itg provisious were frameá to preserve tbs purity of ekctidiis would luvo Htioared that object i;s f ffefitually us tbe naturd of the caso vvould ;iduii, dud that t ie pursous to whmu t'tm i'Xorciso of tho righ' of S',:fïr:ipro Wi8 ouLt to be pressrv-il, ueio, f d!ti..ctoüs v, c a lo bo mida butwecu cloiíors, or.iit'c:! egpacially ïrid i re auiiueutiy to a voica ia our L'Lcfc'iins. I ara yeí consíraitied to bay thet a c&ueful corapijriion of this !a-v with the Constittition iu tholiglil of all the decisions and other eonsidarations, that have bt'en s.Ü'jred to have a beariug, lenvig upou my mit:d uo rcasonabie doubt of tht-ir ooufiict, Any process ot' re .isoiiing whiuh arrivés ata difieroot coüclusiüii i.-, U) my opiuion logically f.il.-o, and it ouibodied iu a jadioial deei- i 'O, would establish a preocdeut whioh in t'ie future inijjbt be seiz.-d upoD ae i s! fii'sti-'-n f$i tnrre serióos jgrvsii-io.t coiiiltu'vionat languiigí!, tin til (hut {iriiiciplo of c.onstitu'.iou&l pcrwaneuoy ai.d itiriulability which, in times like t!-ce, constitutc t lie u'wcbor of our eafetv. v ül KeaBtf o fiue force, and the tem).: ry wil! of tho msjörilj will bc practi ully uticout wttpd. Aud bclicving' as i ] do, 'ü.at a bign and èncred i-cguni for ln nnd uoii3tituüoual order is beiug begii'jm of' thee tiuiea, I regard it as osppci.-.'iy important thal tlio Judiciary tuvuid do uothipfif t" postpone or to e-nek tbia rcmlt by decisions wliioli utrnili er bond t'fio nicauing of wouls t(i uieêt ui;cri'C!ccl ciiii ;:"