The Clerk read the minority report, asfollows: The undersigned. having carefully considered the questiohsof law involved irithis case. has come to the concluswn that Mr. Baldwin wasduly elected and is entitled to the seatwhich he claims is admittedthat of the votes post within theState of Michigan for reJrresentative in Congress from the 5th congressional district of that State Mr. Baldwin had a majority. It is also admitted that a large number of citizens of Michigan who were out of the State and in the serviceof the U.S. on the day of said election. in pursuanceof the provisionsofan act of the Legislature of Michigan. approved February 5, 1864. vote. but the places where t happened to be on the day of election: and that ift esevoteson be luwfull counted. Mr. Trowbridge had amaiorit, and was uly clecthd. If they cannot be lawful counted. Mr. Buldwm was duly elected and is entitlod to his seat. The questionsubmitted i s. therefore. purely alsgal one and involves some nice questions of constitutional law. Article 7. sectionone, of the constitution of the State of Michigan. after prescribing the qualiflchtion of electors. provides that “no citizen or inhabitant shall be an elector or entitled to voteat any election, unlesshe shall be abovethe ageof 21 years, and has resided in the State 3 months and in the township or ward in which he offersto vote ten days out preceding such election.” The supreme court of Michigan in a case arising out of the identical electionout of which this contest has arisen. (the caseof The Peohle earel. Daniel S. Twltehel ca. Amos C. Blodgett.) invo construedtlus provision of their constitution tomeanthat the elector shall be personally present. in the township iuwhich he resides. on the day of election and therein person presenthis ballot at the placeof votin: and that the act of the Legislature o Eebruary 5. 864.” is in direct conflict with the constitution and for this reason void.” This case was very thoroughly discussedand consideredbythe court. the Judges all giving separate opinions and it seemsto me impossible to read the case without arriving at the sameconclusion. This is the highest and most authoritative exposition of that provision of the State constrtution that can be given. The supremecourt of Michigan is the most authoritative exounder of the constitution undlaws of the State. an all other tribhnals lncllldlllR even the SCOTUS itself. are bound to follow and abide by the construction which the State court has placed upon their own constitution. I will not dwell upon this point in the case. as I do not understand the mnfority of the committcp. or, indeed. anyone in hehu fof the claims of the sitting member. to seriously dispute the correctness of the construction placed upon their constitution by supreme the court of theState. it is admitted. I be love, that the act of theLegislature of Februu 5. 1864w. ag in direct conflict with the organic law o in State. It is contended howcver. that the Legislature. in determining the times. places and manner of bolding electionsfor Representatives in Congress. are not bound to conform to the provisions of the organic law of the State. That they have a power above and wholly independent of the ir State constitution and this power is sugposed to be found in section 4 of article 1 of the Federal constitution. which is as follows: “The times. places and manner of holding elections for Sens&Reps hllflll be proscribed in eachState by theLegislature thereof; but the Congress may. at any time. by law make or alter such regulations, excopt as to the places of choosing Senators.”, determining the proper construction to be placed on this clause of the Federal Constitution. it is important to inquire. 1st. what was the object of the rumors of that instrument in ingrafting into it such ii provision l Why was it deemed necessary and proper? tis hardly possible that there can be two opinions in regard to this. The Convention had proyided for a Federal Sepate and HoRep. in which the legislative powerof the proposed Government was to reside. The effectiva organization and continuance of these bodies were necessary to the very existence of the government under the plan proposed: To have a caste and HoRep it was necessitli that membersthereof mustbe elected a t regular a stated periods: and it was argued with great force that a majority of the States ao coming rofrpetory. might by the simple act of reusing to provide the times. places and manner of holding elections for Sens&Reps and thereby defeating the electionof theseofficers. suspend the action destroy the power. oreven blot out of existencethe Federal Government. saIrty. Btoecsaemcuer necessary in, tuheedre exist be absolutely free citizens of the Federal Government. to reserve to Congress the power at any time by law to make or alter such regulations. The objectwas to secure to the Federal Government. for its own safety. the due election of theseofficers not to confer upon the States or any Dept thereof. any powers whatever or to interferein any way with t sin in their mode of electing these Officers aslongus the exercise of this power was left to the States. The obJect manifestly was simply to leaveto the States the power to determine the times, places and manner of holdin these elections. until Congress saw proper to exercisethe powers conferredupon it for thpt purpose. But it is argued that this power was by express terms left. not to the States aimpl. but not to Legislatures thereof and that this issue a limitation upon the peopleof the Statesthat they have no power to restrict their Legislatures in the exerciseof this right conferred upon them by the Federal constitution; but I submit with all due respect. that not only the history and object of the sectionunder consideration but the proper definition of the term “ Legislature.” as therein used. showthe fallacy of this construction. The “Legislature" of a State. in its fullest and broadest sense. Signifies that body in which all the legislative powers of a State reside and that body is the people themselves who exercise the elective franchise and upon their power of legislation there is no liinitation or restriction. Except such as maybe found in the Federal constitution or such ns they may themselves provide by the organic law ot the State. When they assemblein convention. which in large communities is from necessitydoiio by the agency of delegatesor representatives of the people. the whole legislative powerof the State is then vested n such convention. t can abolish or in whole orin part abro ate. the proceedingsof the General Assembly" or “ legislative Council"or“GeneralCourt. "orwhateverin a he the designation of that subordinate body in which is usually lodged a portion or residuumof the legislative power of a state. Indeed. the people of aStatemight provide for the periodical assemblingof their convention. which would BXOIOIH and performal llegislative powers fliamnidtedduatnieds without the intervention of that a Legislature. but wrehsictrhiiintedgowers. popularly called the constitution sof most of the States is called by some other name. Itll variously designated a"GeneralAssembly "a “Legislative Council " a" GeneralCourt. "and the like and is nowhere understood to hold in itsgrssp all thelegislativelppwerspf a State. In Missouri. dunns the late rebellion. the State convention continue its exrstonce for ycars. performing all the ordiuary acts of legislation. on its power to do so is Legislature” Witnhointquestioned. That that when the senseof the term as it is used in this clauseof the Federal constitution will hardly be controverted: and indeed every State convention cal edby the peopleto determine the form of government or the powersand duties of the various officers thereby created is a Legislature and performs many of the ordinary actsof legislation. In deed. it is the Legislature par excellence of the State and that other ho usually created by it whether called a “ General Assembly ” “ General Court.” or otherwise is the creatureof this paramount Legislature and is liable to bemodifiedor annihilated when ver this " Legislature" propertbo convention of a trite shall again asscm is. This 2ndaryor subordinate body is the creature of the organic law of the State. owesits existence to it, nothing and can rightfully do in contravention of its provisions, If. then, this section of the Federal constitution can legislative uebdotdoyroeffear t State is. giteomounsdta 01 subordinate e held to mean that the time. place. one manner of holding elections for Representatives shall be prescribed n eachState by the Legislature thereof. such Legislature acting in subordination and in conformity to that or nio law t9 which it owes its own existence. If the tote constitution has fixed no limitation, the power of the Legislature is ample and complete. But if the constitution has fixed limits this Legislature cannot transcend them. but must act within the limits prescribed and if it goes beyondthemits action is absolutely to that extent void. eed from the adoption of the Federal Constitution until this time. it was never before contended. as far as I am informed. that the clause in question conferred upon that bed in a State in which was gpposedthat residuuin of legislative power. not exercised by the State convention power to act utterly ndependeut of and in utter disregard of. the State constitutson. by virtue ofwhieh aloneit halany exist Q once. The people have everywhere supposed that they had the power to fix a limitation upon the action oft eir Legislature. in determining the times. places and manner ofholding electionsfor all offices. They have exercised this power in most of the States by fixing limitations in their State constitution s and in every instance. I believe. where a conflict has been foundto existin this respectbetweentheState constitution and an act of their Legislature, the constitution has. by courts and legislative bodies. beensustained and the acts of the Legislature. to that extent, held tw benull and void and thisHouse is now. for the 1st themgeis. leaatluleredumpaoyn todecidethat in this respect a State override and iitterlydisregarddhe revisions of the very constitution that brings it oing. into I admit that if there was an irreconcilable antagonism between the Federal and State constitutpioosnist. ioinn such case. there would be ground for the taken by the maiorit of the committee. But nosuch antagonismexists. therefore call upon the House to pause long beforcthey establisha precedent thatwill operateasaninvitation to the State Legislatures to disregard those wholesome limitations which the pepplehaveattemptedto place around the action of their own servants. This long and undisturbed construction of their powerto fix these limitations upon the action of their servants. placed upon the constitution by the people themselves and by all Depts of the Government. ought not at this late dgy to be disturbed. unless it is rendered absolutely necessary by the very terms of the constitution itself. This House has a record of its own and has over. attempted to adhere to the construction placed by itselfiu former adiudicated casesupon the Constitition and laws. Thisis not anewquestion. asfaras this Houseeven is concerned. It is. indeed. resadiudocatu and we should not without very stronlgreasons. in deed. dovart from the preeedents pstabished by our selves. heseprecedentsare all in favor of the construction which I have here placed upon this clause of the constitution. The caseof Shiol in. Thayor. in the 37th Congress reported in Bartletts ContestedElection Cases. page349 is directly in point. The syllabus of the casesays: “The constitution of Oregon has fixed heyond the control of its Legislature the time for holdingan election for Representatives in Congress.” The report in that casewas made by the then and now able chairman of the Committoeof Elections. Mr. Dswiis and theright oi Mr. Shiel to theseatwas Slaoed regou distinctly on the ground that the people of had lllbtlghtdll their constitution. to fix the time for the election of a member of Congress. “The committee. "says the report. “are of opinion that the electionheld for Representative in Congress on the 1st Monday in June. 1860. was held in pursuanceof and in conformity with. the constitution and lawsof Oregon and that consequentlythe contestant is withstanding nttih thesdetoontshteitusteioant. a"l pArnodvisaig oa9th: a“tNgoetn eral elections shall be held on the 1st Monday of June biennially. the Legislature of Oregon seems to havebelievedthatithad powerto tix another time for the election of Representative in congress.” “ The committee have not I cciued it necessary to determinewhat thpse reasonsare for. With all due respect to the opinions of the gentlemen complosing that Legislature, they are of opinion that this Housemust. nevertheless, be the final Judge of the meaning of this clauseof the constitution of Oregon and for the reason sta tedth. e committee have no doubt that the constitution. of the Statehas fixed be yinegndan the control of the Legislaturetho timefor hold generael leelcetcitoine fnotroRepresentativein Congress. at the behold biennially and that at such election. so bold in pursuanooof the constitution. the contestant was uly elec ed.” and again. in the debate in the House on this case. Mr. Dawns said.: It occursto me. sir that that provision of the constitution of the U.S. whichsaysthat the time and placeshall be specified by the legislature of each State. meantsimply that they shouldbe fixed by the constituted authority of the Stateuntil congressitself should fix a time for the election in all the States.” In the caseofFarlee es. Rank. in the 29th Congress, it was held that where there was a conflict between the State constitution and an act of the Legislature in regard to the plucelof voting for Representative in congresstheprovision of theoonstitution was bindin. an the act of theLegislature. so far as it conflict with it. was void. (See Bartletts conlticnsgtetdh –iEsl Hecotuiosnew Caitsheas. uargthee8r7.) and, without troub citation of authorities. I respectfully submit that the ruling of the House on this point has been uniform in everycasein which the questionarose. But admitting that the Legislature wasacting and had the right. to act. by virtue of this section four. article 1. of the Federal constitution. without regard to the State constitution. I still submit that all votescast out of and beyond the State of Michigan were cast without any due. legal authority and cannot properly be counted in determining the electionsin result of that State. for the reason 1st. It seemstomeplain that neither Congressn or the State Legislature can under that clause of the constitution. fi xor fprescribe any placesof voting for an ofllceoutside of the district and especial] out si e of the State. within and for which the o coris elected In the construction of all powersgranted. we must have reference to the object for which the iower is given. At and beforethe adoption of the yars constitution and ever since until within the last 5 all voters everywhere in the U.S. were required to vote Within the district and State for which the Officer is adoption of this clause. elected. At the time of the it is not easyto supposethat anyone member of the Convention for one moment thoughtthatthoyweregranfingto 00 the power to permit citizens to vote outside of t a State for which the officers district and Legislature possesses wereto be elected. If the gress possesses this power. Undoubtedly conthe samepower and if Congress possesses tbq powerto prescribeplacesof voting outside of a district or State for a portion of its citilens. why not the power to prescribe places of votin outside of the State for all e citizens thereof? why not proscriibe that all the citizens of Michigan shall vote in voters offor their membersof Congress and all the maybe saIlildintmhast to StLouis to votefor theirs? It t iswould heagrossabuseof power. ButI deny the existence of any such power and yet. if the power contended for by the committee crusts. the other follows as a necessary consequence. ofBllt tll8 act of the Michigan Legislature by virtue whichthe voteswerecast outsideof the State that it is proposedto count for the sitting member does not prescribe the placeor placesof voting. an conscquentlythe voteswerenot cast in pursuanceof any competent authority. The provision of said statuteis as follows: “Size. 7. At the elections herein providedfor a poll shall be opened at every place. whether within or without the State. where a tery. regiment. battalion. bat or companyof Michigan soldiersmay 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.” “ New. ivill anyone pretend that that prescribes a place or placesof election? What place or places?. Vould a awwhich providedthat any elector of Mich man should vote at, any place. within or without the State. where he in t happen to he on the day of (ltEChfllL prescribe a placeof voting? This is too clear. I submit with all deference. to admit of argument. If Congresso rthe Legislature can prescribeplacesof election outside of the State. I insist th at the places must be named in be aot, and that it is no compli iiucc with the constitution to provide that a man or a company of men. may vote at any placewhere they may happen to be on the day of e eotion and that sue a law does not prescribea placeof election at all. If the ubove positions. Or anyone of them. be rreot. it follows that all votes cast for either Mr. Trowbridge or Mr. Baldwin outside of the State of Michigan were castwithoutany authority of law and eannot properly be counted in making upthe result and consequently. that Mr. Baldwin is entitled to the seat. I therefore propose. as a substitute for the resolution reported y the committee. the following: en[tfietmled vetod. hTohlda the on. Rowland E. Trowbrigo is not seat now occupied by him in this House as a Represcutiitive from theState of Michigan. Irmlwl. that Augustus C. Baldwin has been uly elected as a Representative from the State of Michigun to the 39th Congress and is entitled to a seatin this House. S S MARSHALL.