Mr. DAWES. I agree with the majorit of the committee in the resolution reporte by them, that the sitting member is entitled to his seat, and I think that resolution ought to pass. I do not, however, concur fully in the views set forth in the report of the committee by which they arrive at that conclusion; and as the position which was assumed by the ComElections in 1861upon this pointhas been summoned in aid of the minority report in this case, I desire briefly to state my view of the subject. The report of the majority of the committee as well as that of the minorit, proceeds upon what they concede to he the lhct, that the stat ute of the State of Michigan is in conflict with the constitution of that State. It goes upon that concession very much to my surprise, for I think that nobody can read the constitution of the State of Michigan and be entirely clear that the statute of the State of Michi n is at all in conflict with that constitution. ff: therefore, the statute of the State of Michiganal lowing its soldiers to vote outside of the State is not in conflict with the constitution of the State, the whole argument, as well as the whole ground taken by the minority, falls. Let me ask the House to listen to this clause of the constitution of the State of Michigan, which it is conceded in this whole argument this soldiers voting law is in conflict With: “No citizen or inhabitant shall be an elector or entitled to vote at any election. unless he shall be above the age of 21 years and has resided in the State 3 months and in the township or ward in which he offers to vote ten days next precedingsuch election.” The revision in relation to “the township or war in which he offers to vote” is claimed by those who pronounce this statute unconstitutional to require that the voter must be personally present in that township or that ward uly (gGentfrom ? to deposit his vote I do not think it by any biennial] and that at such election. so held. insur means follows that he must be personally present. The mode and manner of his depositing his vote in that township or ward is not ire scribed in the constitution of the State of Michigan. It may be by proxy. It isjust a, competent for him to vote by proxy as it is or him to vote in person, inasmuch as there is no exress provision that he shall vote in person. The State of NewYork has adopted that very method of voting. by proxy. The sole purpose, it seems to me, of the provision in the constilution of Michigan is to prescribe that in that township or ward his vote shall be deposited and be effectual and count, but on the mode and manner in which it shall be so deposited the constitution of the State of Michigan is si lent, leaving it for the Legislature to prescribe. I do not believe the constitution of Michigan contemplated that it should not he in the power of the legislature of the State to provide that all voters in a city might deposit their ballots in a single ballotbox. lfthis argument against the constitutionality of the soldiers voting law is sustained, it prevents the Legislature of Michigan from providing that the electors of a given city shall deposit their votes in a single ballotbox at one place in the city, but they must be deposited in as many voting precincts as there are wards. I do not think the constitution of Michigan is open to that construction. At any rate it is not by any means free of doubt on that point, and I cannot pronounce a law of the State of Michigan unconstitutional unless there is some clearer reason for it than that suggested by this argument; and therefore it is that upon that ground alone 1 am able to sustain this position of the committee and still adhere to the position taken by the committee in 1861. There is another point, however, upon which the decision of the committee in 1861 would stand unaffected by this case even were the law of the State of Michigan in conflict with the constitution of that State. It has been alluded to by my colleague on the committee and also by the Gentfrom Michigan, [Mr. BEAMAN.] There was no law in the State of Oregon in conflict. with its constitution. The State of Oregon had omitted entirely through its Legislature eo nominc to prescribe any other time for the election of a member of Congress than that which had been prescribed in the constitutional conventionat the origin of the State, which was itself a legislative body in very many respects, so that there is no conflict between the position here assumed by the committee and the positionassumed by the committee in that case, though there may be a conflict in the language used in the report, for I admit that the language of the report of the committee goes to the full extent claimed by the Gentfrom Illinois Pdr. MARSHALL] at this time. I adhere to that anguage foriam not of opinion that the Legislature otIa State can, in conflict with its own constitution, prescribe a different time or a different manner of holding the election. A State or Territory derives its Legislature from its constitution, and when the constitution devolved upon the Legislature co nomine this authority, it must have assumed that that Legislature must always act, when it did not, in conformity with the very law of its being and under such lim itations as its creator had imposed upon it. I believe, as I did then, that whenever the Legislature of a State is required by the constitution of the State to perform any act, it presupposes that that Legislature would act in conformity with the very law prescribed forits existence by the constitution itself, which was its creator. If the doctrine is assumed that the Legislature of a State can, in spite of its constitution, prescribe the mode and manner of election. then it is competent for the Legislature of Michigan to declare by a resolution that they will assemble in the city of Baltimore and choose their Senators in Congress, notwithstanding the constitution of the State says shall assemble at the State capital. I do not hink that the idea that a Legislature can disregard the limitations of the State constitution in at all necessary for the support of this case. To my mind it is rather so dangerous a doctrine that I do not desire to stand committed to it unless I am compelled to do so.