Mr. ROGERS. I do not resume that there is any leader on this side of the House, but each man acts for himself and even upon the other side of the House I notice that the distinguished Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Srsvsxs imself sometimes fails to lead; and it would not be strange if members on this side of the House should even disagree with me. This question, Mr. Speaker, is one about which I have never had any doubt before; but after looking into the different reports presented here, I must say that there is some question in my mind about the true construction of the law upon this subject. I have never heard it contended that the organic law of the State had not the right to control the qualifications of the voters in the State, or the times, places, and manner of holding elections. In my own State, Senators of the U.S. are elected in joint meetin of the 2 Houses of the Legislature as semble togetherforthat purpose, inaccordance with the requirements of the organic law of the State. Ift etheory of the report of the majority of the committee be true, then the Legislature might annul the action of the organic law of the State of NewJerse in regard to electing U.S. Senators or that State. They mightbyasimple actoflegislation, in contravention of the organic law of the State 0t NewJersey, decide that a Senator should not be elected in the manner laid down by the Organic law and it has always been understood; it was so understood in Pennsylvania; it was so under stood inNewYork; and it has been understood by lawyers and AttyGens in all the States where this question as come up about soldiers voting in the field, that it required a change in the organic law of the State before soldiers could vote outside of the domain of the State. I have never heard that understanding questioned. It was so admitted in my own State; it was so admitted in the State of NewYork; it was so admitted in the State of Pennsylvania. It was so decided in the State of I Pennsylvania by the supreme court of that State; and it has been clearly and expressly so decided, I take it to be ranted, by the supreme court of the State of Michigan, which as passed upon this point. By the organic law of the State of Michigan it appears that the rules laid down in that law app y to elections of every character, as well of Federal officers as of State officers, and when the supreme court of Michigan passed upon this subject by its decision, it took into consideration the terms of the organic law, as they had the organic law before them, and they there decide that it prescribed the qualifications of voters, and that a part of those qualifications to entitle a person to vote was one which required him to have a residence in the township or ward a certain number of days before the election was held. Now, I take it that when the constitution of the U.S. gave the Legislature of a State the right to prescribe the times, places, and manner of he ding elections, those rights were given subject to the organic laws of e different States, as they existed in the States at the time the constitution of the U.S. was made and every one of the States at the time the constitution of the U.S. was formed had an organic law; and the Legislature of the State was the creature of that organic law, made by it to carry into operation certain powers within the limits of the grant given by its creator and when the Constitution of the U.S. was made, our fathers had reference to the Legislatures as they existed in the States at that time, and they intended to confine the operation of the Legislatures to the powers conferred upon them by their creatorsthat is to say, the organic law of the different States as they existed at the time of the formation of the constitution of the U.S. In my own State the constitution was made before the constitution of the U.S. was framed, and we remained under that constitution up to 1844. Then we had a new State constitution, and it was the 1st that we adopted after the adoption of the Federal constitution. Now, it doesap ear to me that we must look at the situation o affairs at the time when the constitution of the U.S. was made. The States then existing under the power of their organic laws, had no power to enact any law except such as was given to their Legislatures by virtue of the organic law of the States, and the people that confirmed and ordained the constitution of the U.S. did it with a view to the situation of the Legislaturesas they existed at that time, and intended to give them no more power than they already had a right to exercise under their own organic law and when they said that the Legislatures should prescribe the times and places of holding elections they meant that the State Legislatures were to be controlled by the organic law of the State. They did not mean by the adoption of the constitution of the U.S. to override that organic law, and to allow the people of the States, in opposition to the express provisidus of their own State constitution s, to regulate this matter in a different way from that which the organic law prescribed. lherefore, if this be a correct view of the case, the only relation which "time, place, and manner” hold, is as to the time, place, and manner in which the elections shali) be held, and it was never contemplated, intended, or dreamed of, that persons should have the right to vote at elections by proxy, or in any at er manner except by coming up to the polls and votin in person, by ballot, each man for himsel, so that the qualifications of the voter might be judged o, his demeanor when he came to offer his vote exhibited, and if any suspicion should be created by his actions or appearance, it might be an inducement for some one to challenge his right to vote. Now, I presume it is not denietfby the learned gentleman who is to close this debate, that the place of residence is a qualification of electors as much as the provision that the voter shall be 21 years of a e. The constitution of toState of lays down as a qualification that Michigan a man shal be 21 years of age before he can vote. I ask the gentleman whether the Legislature of Michigan, in contravention of that organic law, can say that a person of ten years o age may vote for Representatives?. 1866. 843