Mr. BEAMAN. Mr. Speaker, the question before us is one in which the people of my State have felt some interest. Its presence here remders it in some degree of national concern; but it more especially affects the citizens of Michigan, rticularly the 1,000s of brave men who ately so generously exposed their lives in the defense of our common country. I feel impelled, therefore. to state the reasons for the vote I am about to give; butin doing so, I shall study brevity, avoid declamation, and confine my observations strictly to the subject under discussion. This question originated under an act of the Legislature of the State of Michigan, entitled “An act to enable the qualified electors of this State, in the military service, to vote at certain elections; and to amend sections 45 and 61 of chapter 6 of the compiled laws, ” aproved February 5, 1864. By this act, familiarly known as the “sol diers voting law, ” every qualified elector of the State in the military service of the U.S., is authorized to vote at all elections, “whether at the time of voting he shall be within the limits of the State or not.” I understand that by the stiulation under which this case is to be heard an determined, all questions of fraud or irregularity in the roccedings under the law are ignored and therefore it seems unnecessary to look into the details of the act. The allegation of the contestant is, that. the not itself is in conflict with the constitution of the State, and therefore void; and that the soldiers vote, upon which the sitting members right to his seat depends. must be rejected. In support of this position section one of article 7 of the constitution of the State of Michigan is cited, in which it is provided that “No citizen or inhabitant shall be an electoror entitled to vote at any election unless he shall be above the ageof 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 preceding such election.” it is insisted as the true construction of this section thatit was intended to preclude every person from voting at any election in any place other than the township or ward in which he resides, and u n such construction the contestants case c iefly depends. Yet whether or not this is the true interpretation of the provision cited I at this time express no opinion, because I do not deem itat all material to the question before us. It is proper, however, to say that different tribunals of the State, cometent in their respective spheres of action to determine the question beyond the power of revision, have arrived at diverse conclusions. A majority of the supreme court have given the construction urged y the contestant, though the chief justice delivered a dissonting opiiiion, while both branches of the Legislature, in determining upon the election arid qualification of their own members respectively gtiave pronounced decisions coinciding. with the views of the chiefjustice. The case before us, however, is in no wa affected except in a single particular, which I shall refer to hereafter, by the decisions and opinions to which Lhave alluded. This question must be decided upon entirely different principles. Section one, article 1. of the constitution of the U.S., veststl! legislative power therein granted in a Congress, to consist of a Senate and a HoRep. Section 2 of the same article provides for choosing the members of the HoRep and defines their qualifications. The 1st clause of the 4th. section is as, follows: “The times, places and mii. nner of holding elections for Senatorsan representatives shall be prescribed in each State by t cLegislature thereof; but. the Congressmuy at any time by law make or alter such regulations, oxceptu. nto the placesof choosing Senators.” Now, it is a fact worthy of notice, that the constitution of Michigan, though a very comprehensive instrument, embracing and treating upon almost every other imaginable subject, and possessing, in fact, many of the elements of a code, nevertheless, makes no allusion whatever to the creation, qualification, nature, or election of a Representative in Congress; nor is such an ofllcer more than incidentally even referred to within all its very volumine us pagesR. e reseutative in Congress, then, is not a State o cer. He is not a creature of the State, but of the national Government. The Legislature, in providin the times, places, and manner of elections of Representatives, does not derive its authority from the people of the State through their constitution, at from the constitution of the U.S. This delegation of power is not in terms conveyed through the geople of the State, nor the constitution of the rate, but it is conferred directly upon the Legislature. The power is not simply permissive, but mandatory; and it is of the most lenary character, subject only to the centre of Congress. The soldiers voting law, which is alleged to be unconstitution al, authorizes citizens of Michigan in the military service, absent from the State, but qualified electors, to vote for State and county offiqers and for members of the legislature. It also empowers them to vote for cpresentatives in Congress. If the act is repugnant to the constitution of the State as it respects the places of election of State officersa fact that neither assert nor deny then to that extent it is undonbtedly void. If it is Framed in pursuance of and in accordance with the constitution of the U.S. in regard to the election of Representatives in Congress, then to that extent it is just as clearly valid. In enacting the law in question, it will be observed that the Legislature acted in a 2 fold character, that is to say, as the lawmaking power of the State and as the agent of the U.S. The Legislature was responsible for its doings in its respective capacities to 2 different principalst will of the people of the State as determined by their constitution, and the Congress of the Uy U.S. It is not material that it attempted to execute both agencies in the same enactment. The one may be without sufficient warrant of authority, and the other authorized and valid. An entire stat ute will not bev oid on account ofan unconstitutional provision, unless that provision is of such anuture. that the remainingpart of the act. oeunot be executedwitbouti it. Did the Legislature violate or exceed the instructions given by the people of the State IThen to that extent their, action was clearly void, and all votes cast. by absent citizens for members of the lIleegislnture, State and countyodicers, should Did the constitution of riaeeted asil egal. the U.S. authorize that, body to prescribe the times, aces, and mmnermf holding elections for, presentatives in Congress? Then such legislationis not a subject for examination and control by the government of Michigan; and the Legislature is requiredto give an account of its stewardship to Congress alone. Did the constitution of Michigan prohibit an absent, patriotic, qualified elector from voting for Representatives in Congress? Then was such prohibitiontinconflict with the act of the legislature, which hadthe authority, sanction, an command even. of the Federal Constitution, and iwas absolutely null and void, But, asks the contestant, ” Are there no restrictions upon this exercise of power? Is there no control. over State Legislatures?” Undoubtedl there are. The people by their fundamentaflaw may restrain and control them in all matters within their iurisdiction, and by express provision of the hederal constitution Congress may control the action of the Legislature in reference to the times, places, and manner ofelecting Representatives in Congress. But Michigan cannot control nor limit an express provision of the constitution of the U.S. ” “The legislatures, ” says the contestant, are create by the people of the States, speaking through State constitution s, and are confined in the performance of their duties by the limitations of those instruments.” Beyond all question the are created by the people of the States, “an undoubtedly they are speaking through, ” or by the authority of, “the State constitution s" when the declare the times, places, and manner of holding elections for State officers; but when they make enactments toucliing the election of Representatives inCon gress, they are uots caking throu by State constitutions, nor are they “confine in the performance of their duties by the limitations of those instruments.” So the judges of the State of NewYork are created by the people thereof, and their duties and powers are dened by the organic and statute laws of the State; butwho will pretend that Congress could not. authorize them to administer oaths and take testimony in cases of contested elections pending in this House, especially if there were an express provision of the constitution of the U. S. charging such duties upon them? Nor can I agree With the contestant when he says, ” The provision of the constitution under consideration was never intended to confer powers upon a State Legislature in opposition to the constitution of the State.” a the contrary, I am of the opinion that such was the precise, well considered intention in framing that provision, or at least that it was intended to confer power upon the Legislature, subjecttobe regulated and controlled by Congress, that might e found to be in opposition to the constitution of the State. This is apparent from the latter part of the tirst. clause of section 4 of article 1: “But the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators.” Not only is the power with held from the people of the State, but the right is reserved to control the action of the Legislature. Nor was this reservation of power the result of more accident. It require no great degree of Sagacity on the part of the framers of the constitution to foresee the necessity and wisdom of such a recaution. lnconveniouccs iave already been felt, occasioned by the various times and manner. if not of the places, of holding elections for Representatives in Congress adopted in the several States; and more than once it has been suggested that Congress intervene to establish uniformity. The framers of our national constitution having determined, as I have already said, that there should be a HoRep, it. then became necessar, of course, tohave elections of mem. bers. o that end there must be regulations. touching the times, places, and manner of elections. To whom, or tonhat Officers, persons, or bodies of men should these duties be confided? This question was. not propounded to a constitutionail convention of the State of Michigan. It was addressed to Washingmn and his compeers assembledin Convention at Philadels phia in 1777, and after. due consideration, the answerwas by them reduced to form and submitted toconventions of the several States, and it. was ultimately decided before the State of Michigan had an existence, and placed beyond the control of State constitution s. These trusts might have been charged exclusively upon congress. They might have been proposed in the SCOTUS They. might have been intrusted to the keeping of the supreme courts respectively of the several States But the power was vested in the Legislatures of the several States, subject only to the control of Congress and it was given to those bodies specifically ea nomine. Again, the duties of regulating the “times, places, and manner" might have been distributed among different persons, bodies, and officers. The power to determine the manner might have been given to the legislatures and that of assiing the times and places, with a view to Uniormity, might have been proposed in the Chief Justice of are SCOTUS The Chief Justice is in no sense of the word a State officer, In the case supposed his authority comes directly from the Lonstitution of the U.S. Would his action be void if it should happen to come in conflict with some State constitution? Again, the Governors of the States respectively, instead of the Chief Justice, might have been selected to determine “the times and places.” In such case would aproclamation of the Governor for that purpose be invalid by reason of being repugnantto the constitution of his State? For that duty the State Executive would be en: offwio an Officeror, agent of the U.S. Does the adoption of a different agency diminish the national authority? In this regard the Legislature is no less the agent of the U.S. because it is the lawmaking power of the individual State. Well, sir, the Legislature of Michigan having the legislative power of the State, subject to the checks and limitations imposed by the State constitution, and being also clothed withkcertain legislative authority by the constitution of the U.S., has enacted a law touching the election of State as well as Federal officers, and prescribing the places oflelect on. Now, if this act runs counter to the State constitution, as to the election of State officers, it is void. But having the sanction of the constitution of the U.S., as to Federal odi cers, it is valid. This is a familiar principle of construction. Let. us so pose that by the constitution of Michigan land is conveye by deed, but that every deed or conveyance thereof ac: knowledged before a notary public is declared to be absolutely null and voi; that by the laws of the State of NewYork any deed or conveyance of realty may be acknowledged before a notary public of any State in the nion. suppose that A conveys to B, in and by the some deed, land in Detroit and land in Buffalo, and that the instrument of conveyance is duly acknowledged befOre a notary public of the Penin sular Statethe deed may be void as to the land in Michigan, but does anyone doubt that it will operate as a good conveyance of the land in the State of NewYork? The construction that l have given to the 1st clause of the 4th section of the 1st article of the constitution of the U.S. is supported by the authorities. Indeed, I am not aware that any respectable writer or authority has ever doubted it, though I know that, at an early day, objections were made against the provision on the ground of policy. Mr. Justice Story says (Story on the Constitution, volume 2, section 818, page 280:) “This clause does not appear to have attracted much attention or to have encountered much oppositionin the Convention. at least so turns can begath ered from the journal of that body. But it was afterward assailedby the opponents of the constitution. both in and out of the State conventions. Withuncom mon zeal and virulence. The obicction was not to that part of the clausewhich vestsin thestate Legis Iatures the power of prescribing the times. placcs and manner of huldinq aclect ons; for so far it wasp surrender of powertot e State governments. Butit was to the superiiitending powerof CuiiHQSSto make or alter such regulations. It was said that such a superiiitending powerwould bedangerousto the liberties of the people and to a just exercise of their privileges in elections. Congressmight prescribethe times of election so unreasonably as to preve ntthe attendance of the clect rs or the place at so inconvenient a distance from the body of the electorsu to prevent a due exerciseof the right of choiee and Congressmight contrive the manner of holding elec tiginssoasto exclude all but their own favorites train o “cc. In answerto all such reitsoniiix. it was urged that there was not a single article in the whole system more completely defensible. Its propriety rested upon this plain proposition. that every Government ought to contain in itself the means ol its own res ervation. Ilicre secme but 3 ways in which it could be reasonably organized. It inight be lodged either wholly in the national Legislature orwholly in the State Legislatures or primarily in the latter and ultimatel in the former. The last was the modeadopted by the Convention.”Seclson814. p. 281. I hope it is not necessary to make an elab orate argument in order to show that the framers of the national constitution understood the import of the language employed by them in the construction of its various provisions. It would do great injustice totheir intelligence and discrimination to suppose that when they used the word legislature they intended to imply constitution s. convention, or people of the State. In the distribution of the various grants of power they exercised nice discrimination; and in the use of terms they studied precision. Thus, by the 1st clause, of section 2, the members of the HoRep are to be “chosen every 2ndyear by the people of the several States.” This provision would hardly warrant an election by the Legislature. By the 4th clause of the same section, ” when vacancies happen in the rere sentation from any State the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to till such vacancies.” Could the Legislature issue such writs, or could the Executive be restrained from the discharge of that duty by a provision in the State constitution? By the 1st clause of section 3 “the Senate of the U.S shall be composed of 2 Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof; ” and in the very next section (four) the Legislature is directed to prescribe the times, places, and manner of elections. In commenting upon the 1st clause of section 3 in reference to the appointment of Senators, Mr. Justice Story says: "They are to be chosen by the Legislature of each State. 3 schemes presented themselves as to the mode of appointment: one was by the Legislature of eachState; another was by the people thereof inde 3rd was by the other branch of e national legislature either directly or out of a select nomi nation. "Commentanu. vol. 2. sec. 701. p. 182. Certainly, in thesepropositions, the people of the Siatc, whether in or out of constitutional conventions and the Legislature are not synony mous norconvertible terms. The differentmodes suggestgd for the election of Senators were pre seated as rival propositions, and the Convention was called upon to determine whether the power should be given to the Legislature or to the people of the State: In order that we may clearly understand the intention of the founders of the Government in regard to these propositions, I continue to quote from the same commentator. The last scheme "M et, however. with no decided support and was vnoetginagtivaegdaqiniost. State voting in its favor. 9 States it and one beingdivided. The 2nd scheme. of an election by the people in districts or otherwise. seems to have met with as little favor. The 1st scheme. that of an election by the Legislature. finally prevailed by a unanimous vote.” Now, I think I have shown that in section 3 the word “Legislature” does not mean State nor the people of a State. Has it a different or more comprehensive signification in section four? Again says Mr. Justice Story: "Another question mightbe sag ested. whetherthe Executive constitutesa part of t in Legislature for such a purposein caseswhere the State constitution gives him a qualified negative upon the larvs. But this has beensilently and universally settled against the executive participation in the appointment.” seclion703. p. 184. These references to the national constitution and the opinions of statesmen contemporary with its formation, show that when its framers used the word Legislature they meant by that term precisely what itimports. [t was employed inno atitudinarian sense. lheyciircfullydistinguished the Legislature from the Executive and from the people. They did not comprehend under the term Legislature the entire government of the State. For that purpose they selected a more fit and comprehensive word. Thus we find them declaring that “ the inigrationor importation of such persons asany of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, ” &c.; that “no State shall enter into any treaty, ” 670.; that “no State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any impost or duties, ” &c.; and that “no State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay on duty on tonnage, ” rite. But, Mr. Speaker, it is intimated that section 4 is limited and controlled by section 2 of article 1 of the Federal constitution, wherein it is provided that “ the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requi site for the electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature, ” and that soldiers absent from the State are not qualified electors. r The qualifications of electors are prescribed in section one, article 7. of the State constitution, a part of which I have already quoted, but I will now read the entire section: “Sec. 1. In all elections. everywhite male citizen. every white male inhabitant residing in the State on the 24thday of June 1835;everywhite male inhabitant residing in the tatu on the 1stdo of January. 1850. who has declaredhis intention to becomea citizenof the U.S. pursuant to the laws thereof. 6 months precedingan election or who has resided in this State 2 years iind 6 months and declared his intention as aforesaid and every civilized male inhabitant of Indian descent. a native of the U.S and notva member of any tribe shall be an elector and entitled to vote; but no citizen or inhab itant shall be an elector or entitled to vote at any election. Unless he shall be above the ageof 21 years and hasresidedin the State 3 months and in the township or ward in which he 05ers to vote ten days next preceding such election.” Now, at this stage of the argument. in order to avoid confusion it is important that we keep the 2 points of discussion, for there are 2, separate and distinct. Let. me be explicit. The 1st is, can the Legislature, without regard to the State constitution, but subject to alteration and control by Congress, determine the times, places, and manner of elections for Representatives in Congress? This I have already considered. The 2nd is, conceding that the qualifications of electors may be prescribed by tie State constitution, has the Legislature by their enactment attempted to dispense with any qualifications required by that instrument? If we bear this distinction in mind, and if I am right in regard to the 1st point, we shall see that whether or not there is repugnnnc apparent or real between the organic law of the State and the act of the Legislature, as it respects the place of voting, is of no consequence whatever unless the place shall be found to be an element of the qualification of the election. But our attention is specially called to that part of section one in which it is “ declared that no citizen or inhabitant shall be an elector or entitled to vote, ” 61c and it is insisted, as the fair construction of this section, that the ballot must actually be deposited by the elector in the township or ward wherein he resides; and that the offerin to vote in the township or ward is apart of the qualification of the elector; but that by the act of the Legislature the elector may vote outside of his township or ward, in fact out of the State. Now, this me be aningenious mode of stating the proposition, but disguise it as you may it is but a reproduction of the 1st objection by the employment of other language to express the same idea. The objection, in substance, in whatever words it may be couched. goes to the place of voting, and not to the qualification of the elector. There is no conflict between the soldiers voting law and section one of article 7 of the State constitution in the particular of qualification. In deed. the act itself, in express terms, limits the franchise to “ qualified electors.” There is no complaint. e on the round of citizenship or age or sex or color. [here is no question of residence made. Indeed, there could be none, because section 5, article 7, of the State constitution expressly provides that.” no elector shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his being employed in the service of the U.S. ” I the objection respects the place of votinrepaenat not the qualification of the elector. C earl the words “in the township or ward in which he offers to vote” are not words of qualification as pertaining to the competency of the elector. It would be a solecism to say that the act of depositing the ballot is a prerequisite element of qualification which must precede the not itself; that is to say, that the man is not and cannot be qualified to offer to vote until he has actually offered to vote. Suppose a white male citizen 21 vears of age has resided in the 1st ward of the city of Detroit for 3 months next preceding the day of election, and is on that day actually present in his word at the poll with his ballot in his hand, is he a qualified elector within the meaning of the constitution? Suppose he retires without offering his vote, is he any the less a qualified elector? Must be vote before he can be qualified to vote 7 Must be offer to vote in order to acquire those qualifications which alone will justify him in attempting to vote? The contestant falls into the extraordinary error of asserting that no citizen of Michigan can be a qualified elector until he has offered to vote in his township or ward, yet nothing can be more logical than the proposition that no citizen can legally and properly offer to exercise the elective franchise who is not already a duly qualified elector. Then is it not clear that the words “ offers to vote” are not words of qualification, but that they are a limitation as to the place where the act is to be performed? If doubts still exist, I think they may be dispelled by reference to other provisions of the State constitution. Words of doubtful import in one section may be rendered certain by other parts of the same statute. In order to determine the meaning of a statute or other leal instrument all its parts should be construe together. Then let the constitution become its own expounder. Thus, section 3, article 7: "Eve elector in all casesexcept treason. felony or breac of the pence shall beprivileged from arrest during his attendanceat election and in goingtoand returning from the same.” What is to be understood by the term elector as here used? Certainly it does not mean a citizen who has offered to vote in his township or ward, because he is exempt from arrest while going to the place of election. The contest ants theory would fiirnish an impertineut. official a convenient defense to a prosecution for the illegal arrest of an elector on his way to the poll. It would be sufficient to show that the party alleged to be injured had not offered to vote, and therefore was not an elector. “SEGA. No elector shall be obliged to do militia duty on the day of electione xcept in times of warpr public danger or attend court as a suitor or witness.” Here, evidently, the person intended is one who, though absent from the poll is a qualified elector: otherwise, the term citizen or other word of like import would have been employed instead of the one adopted and again: "Sac. 6. No elector shall be deemed to have cained or lost a residence by reason of his being employed in the service of the U.S. ” This section recognizes the very class of men whom the contestant would disfranchise, desig nates them by the word electors, and save. their residence; though at the same time they are without the State resisting the assaults of traitors. Of course, if they are electors at all, they are qualified electors. But I return to section one, article 7 and here I an gest that whatever may be the construction of the constitution of Michigan in regard to the locality of elections. considered in and by itself alone, it cannot be fair] so construe as to apply to the election ofed eral officers, nor as to establish any element of qualification inconsistent with the requirements of the Federal Government. In the creation of that instrument, what was the prominent idea that occupied the minds of its ramers and of the people who adopted it? The constitution of Michigan is the framework of a State government. It declares by what officers and machinery the government shall be or uized and conducted, defines the powers an dutiesof many of the officers, and also prescribes the places of their election and the qualification of the electors. But it utters not a single word in reference to the election of Representatives in Congress; and it cannot be presumed that it was intended in any we to conflict with the Federal constitution. lhe main purpose that occupied the minds of the framers of the State constitution touching elections, the only purpose in that regard by them specially expressed, was to regulate elections for officers of their own State. But admit, for sake of the argument, that section one, article 7, is broad enough in its terms to embrace all elections within the State, and for all Officers, State as well as national, and that it has prescribed the qualifications of electors, which it could do, and the place of voting, which it could not do; what then? Why, the U.S. accepts and adopts the prescribed qualifications, but rejects the ovision as it regards the locality of voting. at yet the Federal authority does not assume to interfere with the local affairs of the State. Michigan has sent to the field during the war over 80,000 men, a largeportion of whom were legal voters. It is conce edthat in the exercise of her discretion she may deny to her loyal sons and gallant defenders the sacred privilege of joining with their fellowcitizens at home in the selection of their State and county officers. If such be the construction of her organic law, jnst or an ust., expedient or impolitic, that is a matter of er own concern. at then the Legislature comes to their aid, and clothed with a higher, or, if you please, with an independent authority, declares that those heroic, qualified elect orsqualified by their State constitution shall be permitted to vote for Representatives in Congress, and by that means to aid in the maintenance of an Administration that will take care that the fruits of their expensive victories shall be reserved for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. I think I have shown that by the terms of the State constitution the place of voting was not. intended to constitute a part of the qualification of the elector. But I o further, and insist that whatever might have been their object, it was not in the power of the people of the State to make it a qualification. Had the State constitution been free from all uncertainty, and declared in unmistakable terms that “in no case whatever shall any person vote outside of his township or ward, ” and further declared that “the place of voting shall be taken and held to be an indispensable requisite of the qualification of the electOr, ” yet. such words in factand in law would create no qualification as applicable to a voter for Representativein Congress. Why? Because such a limitation or restraint as againstthe constitution of the U.S. would be void. That instrument has, in effect, pprohibited the people of the State from desi mating in their constitution the places of holing elections for Representatives by conferring that power upon the Legislature, and they cannot evade that inhibition by converting the ducts of voting into an clement of qualification. commniidiii g the Legislature to prescribe the places, subject to the control of Congress, is equivalent to a declaration that the people shall not inter. pose obstacles to the performance of that duty. As to the age, residence, color, moral character, race, and perhaps sex, of the person, the constitution is supreme, but not so with reference to the place. Could the people of Michigan turn the place of voting into an element of qualification section 4 of article 1 of the Constitution of the U.S. would be rendered nugatory. Should the Congress of the U.S., for the sake of uniformity, or for other sufficient reasons, fix the day of clect on of Representatives throu bout the entire country on the 1st Manda o October, and also determine the places of elections, then could the several States designate other days and places and declare such a s and places elements of the qualification of the electors, they might thereby preclude every man in the U.S. from voting for Representative in Congress, and, as a consequence, absolutely prevent an organization of the House. The States cannot, by evesion, or by indirection, or by a ridiculous employment of language, defeat the intention of the people of the U.S., plainly exressed in their organic law. In truth, section our of article 1 of the Federal constitution is in the nature of a proviso, or a limitation of the power of the State, to determine the qualification of electors. The legal effect would not be different had it declared, in so many words, “the people of the States may determine the qualification of electors, provided, however, the place of voting shall be no part of such qualification.” If the State can make the place of voting a part of the qualification, then she can, at all times and under all circumstances, control the places of elections, the wishes and laws of Congress and the constitution of the U.S. to the contrary notwithstanding. But it is alleged that the question under consideration has been decided favorably for the claim of the contestant by the supreme court of the State of Michigan. I must beg leave to express the opinion that the assertion is founded in error. do not understand that it has ever been discussed before that tribunal, or even brought before that court in any form whatever. lhe case relied upon as establishing the principle for which contestant contends is that of Twitchell cs. Blodgett, which involved the constitutionality of the soldiers voting law growing out of the election of a prosecuting attorney for the county of Waslitenaw, and the question was limited to the constitutionality of the act with reference to the election of officers created by the State. Neither the constitution of the U.S. nor the qualification of electors were drawn in question. Lest I should be mistaken in this assertion, I will let each of the judges constituting a majority of the court speak for himself. Mr. Justice Cliristiancy says: “With these preliminary observation: I proceed to an examination of the specific question involved in the presentcase. Does the constitution prohibit the Legislature from authorizing. as they purport to have done by this act, the qualified electorsof this State who maybe in the military serviccof thisState or of the U. S., to votefor Officersof the State and national Gowrnnicnt. at any other place than the township in which they respectivelyreside, and while they are absentfrom such township?" Mr. Justice Coolcy states the question thus: “This law is claimed to be unconstitution al. be cause, it is said. the latter part of the section above quoted from the constitution requires the personal. prescuCcof the elector in the township or ward in which he residesat the time of assertinghis right to vote.” Judge Campbell says: "And weareonly concerned, therefore, indetermining whether the constitution of Michigan has provontedthestate Legislature from excrcism complete control over the localit of elections, a n whollicr, if such control is limited, the limitationis applicable to the subjectbefore us.” These extracts from the opinions of the judges of the court show very c carly what was the “specific” question before them. It. was not one growmg out of the election of a federal officer, It was not one touching the power of the Legislature under the constitution of the U.S. The court did not attempt an exosition of the qualifications of electors. ndeed, the qualification of the class of voters under consideration was asSumed by the court as an undisputed fact. Thus, in the extract already quoted, Judge Christiancy inquires: “Does the constitution prohibit the Legislature from authorizing. as they purport to have done by this act. the qualified electorsof this State who may be in the military service inc. The court simply decide that the constitution of the State restrains the Legislature from passing a law to enable a qualified elector to vote for members of the Legislature and State and county officers at a place out of his township or ward.” Misapprehension of the true import of this quotation from the opinion ofJndge Christian cy seems to have led t ie contestant into error in another respect. He infers that the court has discussed the validity of votes cast by soldiers absent. from the State for Federal officers. Not so. Judge Christiancy inquired whether the act was in conflict with the State constitution in regard to the place of voting for State as well as national o ccrs; but he did not consider whether there was any repugnancy between the latter and the constitution of the U.S. The reference to the election of officers “of the national Government” was. merely incidental in the statement of the question, and was made simply for the purpose of comparing the provisions of the act With the State constitution. The court decided that the votes cast out of the State for the office of prosecuting attorney for the county of Washteuaw were void. But they expressed no opinion in reference to the legality of ballots for Representatives in Congress. Indeed, section tour of article 1 of the constitution of the U.S. was not evenmentioned or referred to by either court or counsel during the entire investigation of the case. Yet while no allusion is made to that instrument the reasoning of the court is clearly against the contestant in regard to the power of the Legislature. Judge Camp bell says: “It is concededthat the power of regulating the time and manner ofelectionsiinil the placcs whero they may be hold is one which is legislative in its iin. turc, and belongs to that body whic is intrusted with the general legislative authority, unless the constitution has limited or destroyed this control over it.” “And Judge Cooley says: I have no hesitation in holding thnt when the time, place and manner of holdiu elections are not prescribed by the constitution flicy are within the discretion of the Legislature, and thereceptionof votes from persons actually out of the election district or even of the State. may be allowed by statute. aplying this principle to the constitutions of Ohio and Wisconsin. we cannotivelldoubt the validity of their statutes; and I regard the decisions made to that cffecl. as entircly correctand satisfactory.” and Judge Christiancy remarks that “Without any limitation of the legislative power in our constitution, that power would have been at least as absoluteand unlimited within the borders of the State as that of the Parliament in England, subject only to the constitution of the U.S. ” Now, in reference to the act of the Legislature, in so far as it is legitimatcl before us, there was no “limitation otthe legislative power“ in our constitution, ” and could be none for the reasons already stated. But it is worthy of notice that the question of legislative power was properly before the court, and distinctly considered; and when we find that the act of the Legislature is relieved by the constitution of the U.S. from the limitation and control of the State constitution, this decision of the supreme court of Michigan is a clear and explicit authority to establish the constitutionality of the act in question, in so far as it. relates to the election of Representatives in congress. For the learning and ability of the gentlemen constituting the majority of that court, who justly take high rank among the ablest jurists of the country, I entertain the most profound respect. Their judicial opinions upon a statute of their own State, when pertinent, ought to have great weight with the members of this House. Nevertheless I insist that the decision referred to makes nothing for the contestant. Upon the main question, the authority of the legislature, under the Constitution of the U.S., it is entirely silent. Mr. Speaker, I have exressed my views as briefly as possible in reterence to the legal rights of the arties res eatively to occupy the seat now in dispute. beyond this I shall not go. It is known to us all that during the dark and loomy days of the war through which happily we have just passed successfully, while a large portion of the northern people openly pronounced the efforts of the Government to restore the Union “ a failure, ” the soldiers of me Republic never repined, never faltered. They did not, however, in taking up arms throw off their citizenship; nor did they escape anx iety in regard to the conduct of civil affairs. We know that the sagacious, intrepid men of the Army often expressed more fear and apprehension of the disloyal ballot at home than of the treacherous bul ct on the field of battle. While they watched the movements of the rebels in front, they ke t a vigilant eye upon the enemy in the rear. hey knew that peace must come from victory. They knew that 100s of 1,000s of northern men were read to makei ominious terms with traitors. hey knew that without the retention of a loyal congress all their toils, dangers, wounds, and sac rifices would be suffere in vain. We cannot marvel that they were anxious to keep the power to raise men and money for the prosecution of the warin loyal hands. We may see how difficult would be the task to convince them that a love of country strong enough to induce the hazard of their lives in her defense should render them unfit and unsafe to speak through their Representatives in the councils of the nation and perhaps we may find it difficult to satisfy our own minds that men should be disfranchised because they stand bleedin in the defense of their countr. These considerations, and many others o which they are suggestive, might appeal powerfully to our passions, our sympathies, and our gratitude; but I put them all aside. I look to the law in the case which alone must be our guide. It would be isingenuous, however, to deny that it is satisfactory to know that in this case justice and law are commingled; that in recognizin the manhood and citizenship of the soldier, and his right to participate in the Government of that country in whose defense he is eriling his life, we follow the dictates, as well oflbonscience as of gratitude, and uphold and maintain the supreme law of the land. Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the resolutions appended to the minority report are properly before the House at this time. If not, I propose to offer these resolutions as a substitute for that submitted by the majority of the committee: Resolved. That Hon. Rowland E. Trowbridge is not entitled to hold the seat now occupied by him in gaming” as a Representative from the State of Resolved, That Augustus C. Baldwin hasbeenduly. gleacnted as a Representativefrom the State of Michi t of the 39th Congress, and is lost in this entitled to a House. I wish at this time, also, to state that I have been requested by Mr. Rnnroan, a member of the ComElections, to say that be concurs with the minority report, and that he had directed that his name should be appended to the same. His name is omitted, as the report now appears, and I make this statement in order to place him right on the record in regard to t llS matter. I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to enter at any great length into the discussion of the questions involve in this contest. Most of the points which I desire to make have already been presented as fully as I desire to present them in the report of the minority which has been read at the Clerks desk. I have listened with some attention to the elaborate and wellconsidered argument of the Gentfrom Michigan, Mr. BEAMAN] and while it has satisfied me that a veryingenious argument may be made upon any side of almost any question, it has failed to convince me that there is any correctness in the position assumed by the majoritywf the committee. I am still satisfied that legally, under the constitution and laws of Michigan, and under the constitution of the U.S., Mr. Baldwin. the contestant, is entitled to the seat on this floor which he now claims. Mr. Speaker, we sometimes rush to conclusions without sufficient premises or authority for so doing, and it does seem to me that if honorable members of this House will for themselves look into the question involved in this case, if they will lay aside everything like partisan considerations and determine the question simply upon its merits, they cannot fail to arrive at a correct conclusion upon it. Sir, we are declared by the constitution of the U.S. to be the proper judges of the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of this House. e are acting in the capacity of fiudges. But that does not authorize us to allow any considerations except the mere legal question involved to enter into the determination of the case. As judges we should decide all legal questions with as much solemnity as if we were sitting as judges on the bench of any court of the country under our solemn oaths and responsibilities as such. The Gentfrom Michigan has taken up a great deal of time in the argument that he has submitted to the House in attempting to prove that the absence of citizens of Michigan 1n the armies of the U.S., and beyond the limits of the State of Michigan, does not disqualify them as electors in the State of Michigan. For myselfI take no such position. God forbid that I should here or elsewhere hold or insist that the citizens of any State, because of the exercise of the highest duties of patriots and patriotism, in going into the armies of the country for the purpose of vindicating the honor and integrity of the country, should thereby be disfranchised. I take no such position. [do not say that the absence of a citizen from his State, called away in the discharge ofany duty whatever, disqualifies him as an elector in the State; but I take this position, that under the constitution and laws of Michigan, one of the conditions necessaay to the exercise of the elective franchise was wanting; not that the citizen himself was disqualified, but he could not be present at the election, and his presence was required by the constitution of the State of Michigan. We here are all absent from our States and from our homes; we are all qualified electors of the States in which we live. If an election should happen to transpire todny in anyone of these States, the man who is here, absent from his home, cannot exercise the right or franchise of an elector. Why can he not? Not because he is disfranchised or disqualified as an elector by his absence, but because the law of the State requires that he shall be presentin person for the purpose of depositing is ballot.