Mr. MARSHALL. If the gentleman will hear me through, I will come to these points in their regular order. I certainly do hold that the convention of a State, in adopting the or gnnic law of the State, may limit the power of the body popularly called a “ Legislature” in regard to the elective franchise, and in regard to the times, places, and manner of 1101ing elections; that this is a power which is dele gated to a State, and to the Legislature of a tatc, if you see proper to use the term. But I insist the convention, assembled for the purpose of adopting the organic law of a State, is the Legislature proper, and that the General Assembly, the general Court, or Legislative Council, whatever it may be called, is a creat ure of the State constitution. The Legislature of a State is restricted in action by the limits placed upon it by the organic law of a State, and cannot transcend those limits unless there is some absolute and necessar conflict between the organic law of a State an the constitution of the U.S., and there is none in this case. I believe I have already made the point that the term “Legislature” means the lawmaking power of a State, which power resides, in the 1st place, in the people, the aggregate bod of electors; but in our country it is exercised usually by delegates of the people sent to a State convention, and afterward), in subordination to the constitution thereby framed, sent to the legislative body created by them, and authorize to exercise that residuum of power delegated to them by the “ Legislature” proper. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am strengthene in this position by the fact that the whole people of this country, from the adoption of the Federal constitution down to the present time, have so understood the powers placed in the hands of a State Legislature; and I believe in nearl every State of this Union they have fixed on placed in their State constitutions limitations upon the powers of the Legislatures in prescribing the time, place, and manner o holdin elections in the States and by no judicia tribunal or legislative body has that power been disputed for one moment until this case arose before Congress. I do not propose tinexhaustive discussion of this question today. Indeed, I imagine all I may say will have no influence whatever upon the vote of a single member upon this floor; but as I differ decidedly and emphatically from the conclusions of the majority of the ComElections, I feel it to be due to myself that I shall present briefly the points on which I differ from them, and the reasons for that difference. This is no new question. The people of the States in the conventions which framed their organic laws, in nearly every one of them, placed limits upon the legislative bodies, the creatures of the constitution s, in regard to this question. This matter has been before this House; and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, if we have regard to precedent and consistency in our own action, that for the sake of the future and for the sake of the effectthis decision may have on the future, we ought to abide by the decisions of the past. This question in regard to the exercise of the elective franchise by citizens who are beyond the limits of their States, in the discharge of sacred duty as citizens, is one growing out of the late unhappy conflict. It is to be hoped such a question will never again arise in our country. Iqt is temporary in its character, but the questions of constitutional construction are of vast and paramount importance, not only to the people at this time, but for all future time. It is important that we should not make precedents which will here after come upin judgment against us in regard to these great constitutional questions. It is, 1866. 821 therefore, of vast importance that these questions should be considered carefully and decided properly. I insist that this very House has time and again decided the very question now before us, and has uniformly decided it in favor of the position I have taken. There is not a decision to be found anywhere in antagonism to this position. The case of Sliiel vs. Thaycr, in the 30 7th Congress, reported in Bartletts contested Election Cases, age 349, is directly in point. The syllabus otpthe case says: “The constitution of Oregonhas fixed beyond the epntrol of its Legislature the timefor holding anelec flon for Representative in Congress. "The report in that casewas madeby the then and now able chairman of the ComElections. Mr. Dawns and the right of Mr. Shiel to the seat was placed distinctlyon the round that the people of Oregon had the right in t on constitution to fix the time for the election of a memberof Congress. “The committee. says the report, are of the o in 1011that the electionheld for Representative in op gresson the 1st Monday in June. 1860, washeld in pursuance of and in conformity with. the constitution and laws of Oregon and that consequently the contestant is entitled t of the seat and again: not withstanding this constitutional provision that General elections shall be held on the 1st Monday of June biennially. the Legislature of Oregon seems to have believed that it had power to fix another time for the election of Representativein Congress.”.” " The committee have not deemed it necessary to determine what those reasonsare for. With all due respoct to the opinions of the Gentlemencom Eising the Legislature. they are of opinion that this House must nevertheless a the final Judge of the meaning of this clauseof the constitution of Oregon. ml, for the reason stated, the committee have no doubt that the constitution of the State has fixed be ond the control of the Legislature the timetorhold xmzan election for Reprosentative in Congress. at the general elpetion to be, held bienniall and that at such election. so held in pursuance of the constitution. the contestant was duly elocted and again, irithe debatein the House on this case. M rD. awns Bud. It occurs to me. sir that thatprovision of the constitution of the U.S. hichso 9 that the time and place shall be specified y the czislature of each State. meantsimply that theyshould be fixed by the constituted authprity of the State until Gon 205:1itself should fix atimo for the electionin all the a cs. "