Mr. TROWBRIDGE. I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, to have an opportunity to reply spe cifically and distinctly to the argument which might be submitted by the contestant in this case in this House against my fight to represent the people of the 5th congressional district of Michigan in the 39th Congress of the U.S. I have consented several times to the postponement of the oonsideration of this subject by the contestant on one pretext or another, and now, in order to get a consideration at the present time, I have consented to the printing of an argument which has not been made in this House by him. I am, therefore, driven to my recollections in regard to the argument made before the ComElections, and to this little amphlet which he caused to be laid on our tables in the early days of the session, in order to ascertain what reasons he urges against that right. I shall therefore submit to this House, briefly as I may, the reasons why I claim to he possessed of that right, hoping that in line of argument may meet the positions which he may have as sumed in the speech which he has not made. Mr. Speaker, the right to participate in the selection of those who are to enact and administer the lnws by which the country is to be governed is justly considered, under a RFG, one of the most sacred and invaluable rights of the people and as each House is made “the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, ” the people look with jealous anxiety to this House to guard this right against all abuse or eneroachment. There is no other tribunal before which this question can be brought. Whatever other questions may be taken to the courts for adjudication, this one of the election, return, and qualifications of a legislator, can obtain no hearingthere. There is no apeal from the decision which shall here be may e and while the people demand that no person who does not possess the requisite and prescribed qualifications of an elector shall be allowed to exercise that high privilege, with equal perti nncity do they insist that all who do possess those qualifications shall be secured on opportunity to make themselves felt in the councils of the nation. The present case comes here on an a ced state of? facts which are substantially as follows, namely: The total number of votes cast for member of the 39th Congress for the 5th congressional district of Michigan, as returned to the State board of canvassers, was 24, 599, of which number I received 12, 647, and the honorable gentleman who contests my right to this seat received 11, 937; thus showing a clear majority in my favor of 710 votes. But it is claimed by the contestant that of this total number of votes 1,538 should not have been counted by the board of canvassers; and that of these 1,538 votes, 1,179 were polled for me, and 344 for him, showing that my majority of these 1,538 votes was greater than my majority of the total vote as before mentioned; and therefore that if these votes had not been counted by the board of canvassers there would have been a majority in his favor of 125 votes. The whole question then turns upon this point, namely, whether these 1,538 votes are to be counted and allOWed in arriving at the result. If they are counted there is no question as 10 my right to represent the people of that district in this House. If on the other hand they are not counted, then there is no question but that the seat belongs to him. Wherein, then, do these 1,538 votes differ from the other votes which were counted and allowed by the board without challenge? At the time of that election, and for previous, war had revailed in the land, loanng the Government ha been obliged to call upon its brave and loyal citizens to go forth and do battle for the li e of the Republic. These citizens, thus called from “1012peaceful homes and converted into armed warriors in defense of their Government, were most of them qualified electors in the various States from which they came. The Legislature of Michigan, like the Legislatures of many of the other States, knowmg that it was impossible for these electors to be present at the usual ordinary places of voting within the State, and feeling that this exhibition of the highest duty of citizenship should not deprive them of the opportunity to exercise this most sacred right of citizenship, had provided by law that the ballotbox should be car; ried to them and their votes received at designated places other than those where the great mass of our people would exercise that privilege. These 1, 638 votes which give rise to this contest were cast by qualified electors belonging to the 5th congressmnal district of Michigan, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of that law. This is the only difference between them and the other votes which were counted and allowed without challenge they were cast at a different place., The contestant denies the power of the Legislature to pass the law by which these citizen soldiers were allowed to vote, because he alleges that the constitution of that State fixes the places where the elections must be held, and being fixed in the fundamental law of the State he denies the power of the legislature to fix my other. the language of the constitution which he claims accomplishes this purpose is to be found in section one of article 7 of the constitution of that State, and is in these words, to wit: “But no citizen or inhabitant shall be an elector or entitled to vote at any election unlessho shall be above the ageof “21 years, and has resided 1n the State 3 mont sandin the townshipor ward in which he offersto vote ten days next preceding such election.” “ He claims that the clause of this sentence, has resided in the township or ward in which he offers to vote, ” fixes the place where the vote must be cast; that to “ otfer to vote” requires the personal presence of the voter at the place thus designated. There is no other point made against the law. It is not a question of residence, which is an element of qualification in the voter, for by another provision of the constitution of that State, namely, the 5th section of the same article 7 “ No olect r shall be deemedto havegainedorlost a residenceby reasonof bein employedin the service of the U.S or of this State.” This settles the question of residence in regard to these men. They were “employed in the service of the U.S., ” and wherever they resided when they entered that service there they continued to reside until, coming out of the service, they established some other residence, or at least abandoned the one previously acquired. he honorable gentleman brings, in en port of his position that the constitution of lilichi Genfixes the place where the elections must be old, and thus restrains the Legislature from fixing any other, a decision of the supreme court of that State, wherein it was hel that certain county officers in that State could not hold offices to which they were elected by the soldiers vote; and he claims that that decision decides this case, and ought to control this House. I hold that it does no such thin, and that if it did it ought not to control this ousc, because this House is expressly made by the constitution the solejudge of the “ elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members.” Let us examine and see what that decision is, and to whom it a plies. It is conceded by the judges who may e that decision, that the passage of such a law was undoubtedly an exercise of an ordinary legislative power, and clearly within the province of the Legislature, unless it was restrained or prevented by some controlling power. Judge Cooley, one of those judges, in his opinion in this case, says: “Ihave no hesitation in holding that when the time. place, and manner ofliolding cleetionsnro not srescrihed in the constitution. they are within the iscretion of the Legislature, and the reception of tvroictet, sofrroemvepncorfstohnesStaactteu. amllyayobuet aolflotwheedeblyecsttiaotnudteis.” Judge Campbell, another of those judges, also in this case says: "It is concededthat the power of regulating the times and manner of they may be elections and the placeswhere held is one which in legislative in its nature and belongs to that body which is vnth intrusted the general legislative authority, unless the constitution has hmted or destroyed this control over it and we are only concerned1therefore. in determining whether the constitution of Michigan has prevented the State Legislature from excrcism complete control over the locality of elections, an whether. if such control is limited. the limitation is innhcabls to the subject before us.” The majority of the court find such a limitation of the power of the Legislature in the language of the constitution of that State, which have alread quoted, which provides that the elector must have “Residod in the township or word in which he 05011to vote ten days next precedingsuch election.” and hence they deny to the Legislature the power to pass this law, which prescribes other places for holding elections than the township or ward where the voter resides. But to what elections does this language of the constitution of Michigan apply? Maui festly to the election of otheers created by that constitution, and to no others. The court it self was a creature of that constitution, and had no authority to o be ond its limits and jurisdiction. If, then, she. lshow that ahigher power than State constitutions has prevented the State constitution, or the people in forming their State constitution, from thus limiting the Legislature in its control over the “ lo cality of elections ” of members of Congress, I shall then have shown that in the opinion of that court itself the Legislature of Michigan has undoubted power to fix the places where those elections shall be held. It may be properhere to remark that this decision is the opinion of only a majority of the court. The ehie justice of that court, in a very able opinion, maintains that notwithstanding this language of the State constitution, the Legislature has power to pass the law, and thus enable the qualified electors of that State who are absent in the military service of the U.S. to vote for their State and county officers. He claims, with great force, that if it had been the intention of the framers of the constitution to take away from the Legislature this undoubted authority, and prevent it from exercising this power, conceded to be an or dinary power o legislation, they would have used language plainer and more distinct than this expression, which is manifestly an incidental one, and is descriptive of the place of residence, and not the place of voting. vBut I propose to show that the decision of that court, as well as the entire argument of the gentleman here, is irrelevant to the case now under consideration; because a higher power than the State constitution has restrained it from exercising any control over the places where the elections of members of Congress shall be held, and has expressly delegated that control to the Legislature of the State. The 4th section of the 1st article of the constitution of the U.S. reads as follows, to wit: “The times, places, and manner of holding clect ons for Sens&Reps shall be prescribed in eachState by the Legislature thereof.” Thus absolutely requirin the Legislature of the State to do in regar to the election of members of Congress precisely what the majority of the court decide and the gentlenian claims the State constitution forbids it to do in regard to the election of State Officers, namely, to prescribe the places of holding those elections. Can language be plaiuer than this? The constitution of the State is not the Legislature of the State. The people, in convention by delegates forming their State constitution, are not the Legislature of the State and I claim that under this clause of the constitution of the U.S. no power in the State had an right to touch this subject at. all except “the Legislature thereof.” The people of the Territory of Michigan were. restrained by the constitution of the U.S. before they formed their State. The delegates in the convention forming their State constitution were restrained by it, and could eertainl enact no matter into the fundamental law of their State which that restraining power had expressly reserved from their control and delegated to another body to act upon. and, Mr. Spliker, this provision of the constitution of the U.S. is a mandatory provision "Shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” It 1: uires the Legislature of the State to prescribe the places where the elections for members of Congress shall be held. The members of that Legislature had sworn to support the constitution of the U.S., even before the had sworn tosu port the constitution of their State and under that authoritynay, under that requirementthey enacted thislaw prescribing the places where those elections should be held and in accordance with the provisions of that law these 1, 638 votes, which the gentleman claims should not be counted and allowed, were cast and the only question for this House to decide is, whether the requirement of the constitution of the U.S. is a sufficient warrant for the Legislature of the State to pass the law. The gentleman also brings forward several decisions of the House in contested elections, which he claims establish precedents under which the seat must be given to him and he has discovered that in one of them, the Oregon case, I myself voted here to sustain the very principle upon which he expects toobtain seat. Wonderful sagacity! The gentleman has seen performed the play of Hamlet, but failed to notice that the part of Hamlet was left out. That case lacked e very point which must control the decision of the one now before the House. That point is, whether the Legislature of a State, acting under the constitution of the U.S., has power to pass a law which conflicts with the constitution of the State? There was no such question in the Oregon case, because there was no such conflict. The Legislature had accepted and acquiesced in the provision of the constitution, and had ssed no conflicting law. Mr. Dawns, the c airman of the ComElections, in the debate on that case, says: “The sitting member does not claim to have been electedin pursuanceof any law or any constitutional provision whatever but on the general right to Representation which the people have. The contestant is here by virtue of an election, at a time and place fixed in the constitution of Oregon itself; in compliance with which the Legislature haveforborne tothis day to fix any other.” In another place he says: “Now, the Legislature of Oregon has acquiesced. if nothing more, in the time fixedzbythe constitution.” and further on in the debate, he says: “Either the Legislature of Oregon can, notwithstanding the provision of the State constitution, fix the time of t selection of a member becauseof the constitution of thoU. S., or elsethe peopleof Oregoncan do it through their constitution aswell as through their Legislature.” He does not say which of these theories he would adopt ifs. case were promoted in which he would have to decide between them. But in the whole debate he claims that the Legislature had, by its silence, accepted and acquiesced in the provision of the constitution, and hence in thatcase that provision was as binding here as, if it had been an act of the Legislature. I voted for the admission of the man, although he was the advocate of political views to which Iain unalterably o pose, who had been elected by the people of regon at a time when it was universally understood by them that a member of Congress was to be voted for, and not for the admission of a man who, a pealing from that decision of the people, had ada few votes cast for him as a member of Congress at a time when no one else dreamed that a member of Congress was to be voted for, and on the strength of such an election had presented himself here for admission to a seat. I should do the same thing again. But I protest that, in doing so, I am not to be understood as passing on such a case as the present one, where the election took place at a time and places established by law, and all the people understood that they were to vote for a member of congress, and accordingly all parties took part in the election. But there is another principle running through all the cases of contest which I claim may well be considered to establish a ruling precedent. It is very bridy and clearly stated in the report of the ComElections of the 19th Congress, in a case which came up from the then Territory of Michigan, in these words: “The committee consider that it is only required them to ascertain who had the greatest number ofal votesactually given at the election.” and in determining this fact the local law has been regarded as advisory and directory, and only so far essential as its violation was roof of fraud in the election and the House has been controlled by the “greatest number of votes, ” provided they were actually given by qualified voters at a time when the whole people understood they were to vote for a member of Congress. But the gentleman claims that under another provision of the constitution of the U.S. the qualifications of an elector for a member of Congress are required to be the same as the qualifications o an elector for a member of the most numerous branch of the State legislature; and inasmuch as these soldiers, an or the decision of the court, could not vote for members of the State Legislature, therefore, they could not vote for members of Congress. The matter of fact is these soldiers did vote for members of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature; and when the question of the right o a member to hold the seat to which he ad been elected by the soldiers vote came up in that body, it was decided that they were entitled to hold the seats and the men thus elected are today members of the Legislature of Michigan. This question, having been decided by the Legislature before the court made its decision, was reconsidered and reaffirmed after the court had made its decision and that court itself has since recognized the complete right and duty of each House to decide this question upon its own judgmentwithout reference to the action of the court. I have here a copy of the Journal of the proceedings of the most numerous branch of the State legislature of Michigan for 1865, and without goin minutely into particulars, I find it here recor edthat on the 7th of January the House took upltbe report of the select committee, to whom adbeen referred the contested election case from the 1st district of Oakland county, and by vote awarded the seat to the claimant who had received the greatestnumber of votes, counting the soldiers vote. The decision of this case seems to have been regarded as a virtual decision of all the cases, and the contestants either withdrew or suspended their claims and went to their homes. but after the decision of the court in rard to the county Officers, upon which I have cady commente was made, they came back and renewed an pressed their claims and Ifind recorded that on the 23d and 25th days of February the House again took up these cases and voted scriatim on each and every one of them, and confirmed the seats to thos; who had been elected by the soldiers vote. I have also in my hand a decision of the supreme court of Michigan, certified to by the reporter of that court, in which, in reply to an argument against the validity of one of the enactments of that Legislature, because its passage had deended upon the votes of these men, who it was c imed had not been legally elected, Judge Cooley, in giving the opinion of the court, which was concurred in by all the judges, distinctly affirms that u. on the question o its own memberslii each House of the Legislatnre is clothed wi “judicial power to decide both as to the law and the facts, ” and that “no other body or court has a right to review its decis ion.” I plead this decision of the supreme court of Michigan, which the gentleman affects to so much respect, in answer to all his news pertwaddle about the action of that Legis ture with which he has attempted to enlighten this House. But, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this matter of qualifications of electors. The votes of these soldiers were rejected by the court for no want of qualification in the elector. The offering to vote, the place of voting, or even the act of voting, forms no part of the qualifications of an elector. The supreme court of Michigan l made no such decision as the gentleman claims. They made no decision whatever in regard to the qualifications of an elector. They simply decidedthat the place where the vote must be cast must be in the township or ward where the voter resides. The gentleman asserts that “the supreme court of Michigan holds that the place of voting is a qualiticalion.” Let us appeal to the record an see. 1st, Mr. Justice Chris tiancy in his opinion in that case says: “With thesepreliminary observations I proceedto an examination of the specific question involved in he presentcase. Does the constitution prohibit the legislaturcfrom authorizing, as they purport to have done by this act. the qualified electorsof this State who maybeabsentint a military service of this State or of the U.S. to votefor silicon of theState and national Governmentsatany olher place than the township in which theyrespectivelyreside, and while they are absentfrom such township2" The specific question then involved in that case was, according to this judge, as to the place where the qualified electors may vote. If they were already qualified electors, as be distinctly calls them, the place of votin adds nothing to their qualifications. It is not justice Christiancy, then, who holds that the place of voting forms art of the qualification. Next Mr. justice Cooley says: "We had. then. on looking into the history of this provision. that the constitution of1835. after fixing the qualifications of electors. added this n ative claus that “no such citizen or inhabitant sh be entitle to vote, ” to and it was this netive clause, subsequently amended by the people in 1839, which, he claims, ” Clearly requires the gersonal presenceof the voter in the township or war of his residence as a condition of his right to vote.” Not as a qualification, but “as a condition of his right to vote.” and this negative clause was a ded, he declares, “alter the qualifications had been fixed. ”. It is not Justice Cooley, then, who decided that the “place OfVOtlflg is a qualification.” Next, as to Justice Campbe; and these are all the judges who concurred in the decision. He says, quoting art of the paragraph to. which I have already called the attention of the House: “And weareonly concerned. therefore, in determin in: whether the constitution of Michigan has prevented theStateLegislaturefrom exercising comp ete control over the locality of elections: and whether, if thatcontrol is limited. the limitation is applicable to the subjectbefore as.” This is his method of stating the specific question involved in the case“ Now, let us see how he decides this specific question. In the concluding paragraph of his opinion he says: “In wan amendment was program and subsequently adopted in thesewords: tso much of the 1st section of the 2nd article of the constitution as presoribestheplacewherean electormayvote and which is in these words, to wit. “district. count or township.” be abolished and the following he s stituted therefor, to wit. “township or ward. ” Judge Campbell proceeds: "Here we have the construction by the pee ls themselves. as the authors of the constitution, c clarinlr this provision to heone of place, and making a changewhich couldbe of no avail except on that so position. I caunqt. therclorc, attach to it any other meanin than that the voter must cast his vote personally inhis own township or ward.” Judge Cam bell then distinctly affirms, as the people o Michigan themselves have affirmed, t t this provision refers to the “place where an elector may vote.” Of course the constitution speaks of no other electors but qualified electors. So far from any of these opinions asserting that the place of voting is a qualification, they all concede that the qualifications exist prior to and independent of the place of voting. I am today standing here nearly 1,000 miles from the township of my residence as undoubtedly a qualified voter of that township as if I had never been out of it. So were these soldiers, and if they had gone home, as many did, and reached the voting places in the townships of their residence the act hour, nay, the last minute before the polls were closed, no power on earth could legally have prevented them from voting. notwithstandin the constitution of the State requires a ten ays residence immediately preceding the election. No, sir, these men possessed all the qualifications of voters, and the decision of the court simplydeclares that their votes were null and voi in the case then before it, because they were not cost at the places where, in the opinion of a majority of the court, the State constitution requires the electionof state and county officers to be held and I here again call attention to the fact thatby the constitution of the U.S. these 3 things, call them by whatcver name you may, elements of qualication or legal requisites, or mere incidents as they arc, “the times, places, and manner of holding elections for members of Congress” are expressly re served from the control of the State constitutions and I apprehend no man will claim that the State constitution may, i) indirection, by calling these 3 things qualification of elect ors, obtain a control over them which it is expressly restrained and prohibited from exercising. This view is greatly confirmed by an exami nation of the concluding words of the para graph under consideration: "The times places and manner ofholdmgclect ons for Sens&Reps shall be prescribed in eachStatebythe legislaturcthereof; but Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, exceptas to the placesof choosing Senators.” This exception of the “ places of choosing Senators” shows that this very subject of the place of voting was in the minds of the framerso that instrument, and by these closing words of the paragraph the place of voting is distinctly reserved to the ultimate control of Congress. Now, then, it is claimed by the honorable gon tleman, and I freely admit it, that the power to fix the nalifications of voters is granted to the States, cyond the control of Congress. If, now, the State may make the place of votingpart of the qualification, congress, having no power to interfere with the qualificationso voters, cannot “ make or alter” any regulations in regard to it. Hence, we are driven to the conclusion that the framers of the constitution either under stood that the place of voting forms no art of the qualifications of an elector, or else they in serted into that instrument a meaningless and impotent provision to regulate a matter which they had already surrendered entirely to the control of the States. I do no tbelieve that the framersoi that constitution, whose adaptability to all times and all circumstances has been so gloriously illustrated in the terrible struggle through which we have just passed, have inserted into that instrument anyimcaningless provisions.ence, I adopt the other alternative, and confidently assert that they understood that the place of voting could form no part of the qualications of the voter. The Michi 11 soldiers votin law was care full guarde in this respect. one but qualified electors, nay, more, none but those who were registered as qualified electors in the townships of their resience, were allowed to vote and the votesof many who claimed and desired to exercise the right to vote were rejected for want of prooiof registration in the townships where they claimed to reside. So carefully did the law guard the sanctity of the ballotbox, that in all the contests which have arisen under it and I believe there were about ficases of contestI have heard no word of udulent voting and the gentleman himself, in the papers which he has filed in this case, makes no question here on that score, but simply denies the validity of the law for want of power in the Legislature to pass it. I think have shown that the Legislature does possess the power to pass the law in case of the election of members of conss, deriving it from the highest source of authority, the constitution (if the U.S., by which it is made the duty of the Legislature to prescribe “ the times, places, and manner of he ding elections for members of Congress.” I think I have also shown that there is no collision between the decision of the supreme court of Michigan and the decision which I ask this House to make of the case before it. The court decided a case arising under the State constitution in regard to an Officer created by that constitution, whose duties were all imposed by and whose responsibilities were to that constitution, and the majority of the court decided the case according to their views of the requirements of that constitution. I ask this House to decide a case arising under the constitution of the U.S. in regard to an office created by that constitution, whose duties and responsibilities are all imposed by that constitution; and it seems to me that it can be decided only in view of the requirements of that constitution; and it was under one of those express requirements that the law which alone gives rise to controversy in this case was enacted. Mr. Speaker, I have also attempted to show that there is really no collision between these 2 constitution s. Each has acted in its own s here, and has made such requirements upon the Legislature as the judgment of those who formed them pronounced necessary for the safety of the State. But, sir, if there is a collision between these 2 constitution s, can it be questioned for a moment which is to give way? The Constitution of the U.S. is declared by itself to be “ the supreme law of the land, anything in State constitutions or laws to the contrary notwithstanding.” Why were these men not at home to vote at the places where the majority of the court decided they must cast their vote for State officers? Simply because Mr. JeffersonDavis and his accomplices, after proclaiming for years that State constitutions and State laws were superior to the constitution of the U.S., had finall taken 11 arms to maintain that heresy, and t us overt row the Government of the U.S and you and I, Mr. Speaker, and many others who now surround me, voted here for the passage of a law under which these men might be called outconscripted, if need beto maintain the integrity and supremacy of that Government. We can justify the passage of that low in no other way but upon the ground that that Government is supreme and had a right to maintainits integrity. Under that ca 1these men went forth, voluntar conscrits, to do battle for that great principle; and for fourlong years this question has been argued by the booming of cannon, the rattle of musketry, and the fierce ba onet charge upon the battlefield; and, sir, it has been decided. I shall not disparage that great argument by attempting, with any feeble ogic of mine, to rear ue ere a question which has been thus decide there. But I may appeal to this House, in the name of the 1,000s and tens of 1,000s of wid ows, to whom it is some consolation to believe that their husbands and protectors laid down their lives in a holy and justifiable cause while battling to maintain the integrity of their Government and the protection of that flag over those whom they loved more than life, not to take away that consolation by now declaring that after all these brave men were battling to maintain a falsehood, that the Governmentwhich they died to maintain is not a Government; in the name of the tens and 100s of 1,000s of orphans scattered all over this broad land, whom we have taught to believe that the proudest memento in all their future lives will be the thought, “My father died at Gettysburg or Antietam or Vicksburg or in the Wilderness, to maintain the supremacy of that flag which I so much the more love, ” not to blot out that bright memento and cast disgrace upon the honored dead and finally, in the name of the 2 million brave men whose living bodies for 4 long ears formed the ramparts which protected our omes from the desolation of war, not to take away from them their only justification by declaring here that, after all, State constitutions are superior to the constitution of the U.S. the very heresy which they were exposing and sacrificing their lives to overthrow. I do not believe that such can be the decision of this House. I will not believe it till I am compelled by yourvote to go out from here to reclaim it.