Mr. SCOFIELD. The question was not whether the Legislature or the constitutional convention of the State had the right to fix the place of holding the election, but whether those students voted in the place at which the law prescribed they should vote., Mr. MARSHALL. The act of the Legislature prescribed one place, the constitution of the State prescribed another. The constitution, as the committee construed it, permitted those students to vote at Princeton; the act of the Legislature denied them that privilege. The committee held in that case that the constitution should govern, and that those students were legally qualified voters at that place; that they hadIdleright to cast their ballots at Prince ton, thou by that was pprohibitedby the act of the legislaure. The question as to the place of casting the ballot of the elector was the very question before the committee at that time; and they decided that the constitution of NewJersey and not the act of the Legislature should govern in regard to the place ot voting. But, Mr. Speaker, I will not consume further time in the discussion of this point. I willpro ceed to notice one or 2 other points in the case. Admitting all that is contended for by the ComElections and by the Gentfrom Michigan who opened the argument in this case, I maintain that votes cast outside of and beyond the State of Michigan by the citizens thereof, cannot properly be computed in determining the right to the seat now contested in this House. I insist that under this clause of the constitution neither the Legislature of a State nor the Congress of the U.S. can prescribe a place of voting beyond the limits of the State where the officer is elected. We must look at the objects and purposes of this clause in the constitution. Did the framers of the constitution ever dream that they were granting to the Federal Congress power to prescribe places of voting for members of Congress beyond the district and State in which they were to be elected? Is it not clear that if congress may prescribe a place of voting outside of the State for a portion of the electors, it may also prescribe a place or places for all of the electors outside of the State in which they reside? We are told, I believe by Cicero, of a law enacted in one of the ancient States which provided that anyone who drew blood in the streets should suffer death, and yet the judges very properly held that this did not apply to a surgeon, who bled a atient in the streets for the purpose of saving is life. They arrived at this conclusion by abandoning the literal sense of the words of the statute, and looking at the objects and purposes for which it was enacted. iVhy, Mr. Speaker, in the construction of all powers granted, we must have reference to the object for which the power is given. At and before the adoption of the constitution, and ever since, until within the last 5 years. all voters, everywhere in the U.S., were required to vote within the district and State for which the officer is elected. At the time of the adoption of this clause, it is not easy to suppose that anyone member of the Convention or one moment thought that they were granting to congress the power to permit citizens to vote ontsi e of the district and State for which the officers were to be elected. If the Legislature posesses this power, undoubtedly Congress possesses the same power and if Congress possesses the power to prescribe places of voting outside of a district or State for a pertion of its citizens, why not the power to prescribe place. That was a question of 1866. 823 of voting outside of the State for all the citizens thereof? Why not prescribe that all the citizens of Michigan shall vote in Chicago for their members of Congress, and all the voters of Illinois go to StLouis to vote for theirs? It may be said that this would be a gross abuse of power., But I deny the existence of any such power and yet, if the power contended for y the committee exists, the other follows as a necessary consequence. But the act of the Michigan Legislature (by virtue of which the votes were cast outside of the State that it is proposed to count for the sitting member) does not prescribe the place or places of voting, and consequentlythe votes Were not cast in pursuance of any competent authority. The provision of said statute is as follows: “SEO. 7. At the elections herein provided for a poll shall be o enedat every place. whether within or without the State, wherea regiment. battalion. but tery or companyof Michigan soldiers may be found or stationed: and at such election all persons may vote who are thereto entitled by law and )by the provisions of this act.” Now, will anyone pretend that that prescribes a place or places of election? What place or places? ould a law which provided that any elector of Michigan should vote at any place, within or withOut the State, where he might happen to be on the day of election, prescribe a place of voting? This is too clear, I submit with all deference, to admit of argument. If Congress or the Legislature can prescribe places of election outside of the State, I insist that the places must he named in the act, and that it is no compliance with the constitution to provide that a man, or a company of men, may vote at any place where the may he. pen to be on the day of election, an that sue a law does not prescribe a place of election at all.