Mr. MARSHALL. Imove that the contestant have leave to print his remarks. No objection being made, leave to print was accordingly granted. The followin is the argument prepared by Mr. BALDwIN, (contestant.) Ii Mr. Speaker, in appearing before this House as a claimant for a seat therein, the novelty as well as the importance of the matter places me in an embarrassing position. I would gladly defer to some other the task thus necessarily imposed, but justice to myself and those who gave me their votes at the congressional election in my district demand of me the performance of this duty. I do not come a mere supplicant for favors to be granted, but with a sincere belief that my title to a position in this body is equal to that of any of its members. The law has imposed certain forms in cases of contests. To those I must conform, and however much the final determination may not accord with my individual views it will be binding upon all. From it there is no appeal; and to make it equitable, just, and satisfactory to the parties and to yourselves it will require a careful examination of the questions involved in this contest. I shall endeavor to present the facts as plainly and with as much brevity as the case will admit. The 5th congressional district of Michigan is composed of 6 counties; and in them, at the November election, 1864, of the votes polled I received a majority of 126. These were all in accordance with the established provisions of law, and of their validity noquestion has been raised. If no change had been made by the Legislature in the manner of conducting the elections in Michigan, my right would be undisputed. But, during the 10 is lative session of 1864, 11 soldiers voting law was enacted, allowing polls to be opened where ever a Michigan regiment, a company, or a detached portion of one was “found or stationed, ” and all soldiers from Michigan, with certain restrictions, were allowed to cast their votes. The law, however, did not restrict this voting to the members of Michigan regiments, but permitted those from Michigan in the service of the U.S., or soldiers “ present from other States, ” to vote on those occasions. The electors were authorized to open polls and choose 3 inspectors of election; and, as those votin places were not fixed at any particular loca it, it followed that any 3 soldiers from Michigan, “detached, ” could go through the ceremony of holding an election. A sufficient number of votes are admitted to have been cast at these votin places, outside of the limits of the State of Michigan, at the election in November, 1864, to overcome my majority on the home vote, and give it to my competitor. These votes, I insist, were void by the constitution of the U.S and the laws and constitution of Michigan. It is assumed on the part of m opponent that the place of voting is not a qualification, and forms no part of it; that the constitution of Michigan cannot affect, control, or regulate the place of voting by the electors for Representatives in congress, but that this matter is wholly dele gatefirby the constitution of the U.S. to the Legislatures of the respective States; and as the main question involved in the case under consideration rests upon the proper construction of the provisions of the national Constitution, and what is a “qualification” for a voter, I trust I may be permitted to go some what into detail relative to this subject. Section 2 of article 1 of the Federal constitution provides that "The HoRep shall be composed of members chosen every 2nd year by the people of the several States and the electors in each State shall have the qualications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.” Section 4 provides that "The times, places, and manner of holding cloctions for Sens&Reps shall be prescribed in eachState by the Legislature ihereof; but Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, ” 6:o. it is by virtue of this section that it is assumed that a State Legislature have absolute, unlim ited control in fixing the times and places of holding an election for members of congress. I think it will not be denied but that the people of the various States have an undoubte right through their various constitution sto prescribe any qualification for electors for members of the State Legislature they may deem expedient, no matter how fanciful or severe may be that qualification, attached as a prerequisite to veting. By the Federal (bustitution the samg must apply to the electors of Representatives in congress. The constitution of the U.S. as so provided, and the Federal and State or nic laws must go hand in hand, peace fully an harmoniously, in allowing the exercise by the electors of the privileges conferred. If the constitution of a State wholly discard color, sex, or residence, and it should permit every person 21 years of age to vote for State representatives, it will have thus fixed the qualificatiops for congressional electors and the people of other States restricting su frage to white male adult citizens, and that after a long residence, have no right to object. So, if a State constitution make place a qualification, it extends to and centre s electors for members to this House. Here is where the issue is between my opponent and myself. He contends that “place” has nothing to do with the right to the exercise of suffrage, and that any law passed by a State Legislature authorizing voting at any place out of the State would be valid; and a person elected by such votes would be entitled to his seat, no matter if they were void for all other Officers. As monstrous as is this doctrine, as destructive as it would be in overturnin and annihilating every bar rier to preserve tghe purity of the elective franchise, it has its advocates and supporters, and, it may be, will be sanctioned and adopted by this House. The people of Michigan, in their 1st constitution of 1835, gave extensive voting privileges til: the electors of that State. They provided t “at In all elections every white male citizen, above the age of 21 years, having resided in the State 6 months next preceding an election shall be entitled to vote at such election. but no such citi ten or inhabitant shall be entitled to vote except in the district, county or township in which he shall actually resideat the timeof such election.” At that time our State composed only one congressional district, and an elector could vote anywhere in the State. A few years7 experience taught the people that the privilege thus loosely conferred was open to fraud, and to avoid that difficulty, and to brin the voter face to face with his neighbors at t ie polls, the constitution was amended in 18239, restricting the casting the vote to the “ township or ward.” In 1850 we formed a new constitution, and with the experience of the 2 former, the people again provided in section one, article 7 "Bat no citizen or inhabitant shall be anc lectoror entitled to veto unless he shall be above the c of 21 years and has residedin this State t reo months and in the township or ward in which he offers to vote, ten days next preceding such election.” It will be observed that this provision of the constitution fixes the qualification of electors for all the various elective Officers, both State and national. No discrimination is made as to the electors, and the qualifications are as definite as language can make themcitizenship, &c., above the age of 21 years, residence in the State 3 months, and in the township or ward in which he ofiers to vote, ten days next preceding an election. This is all to be taken together; and if the age and residence are “qualifications, ” no sound reasoning can separate the place of voting from the category. Without referring at present to the other aids in fixing a meaning to these words, they would prove that all votes cast outside of the town or ward of a voters residence would be invalid. But at th lection of November, 1864, by Virtue of the act to which I have referred, votes were cast beyond the bounds of the State for all the various officers to be chosen at that election. A case involving the constitutionality of the law authorizing those votes for a prosecuting attorney, and which votes were cast at the same time, in the same manner, and by virtue of the same law as those claimed by my oppo nent, was submitted to the supreme court of the State, and, after a patient, thorough examination, an opinion was given by each of the judges upon the matter. All of the m proclaimed their desire to give the right of suffrage to the foldiers, but they alleged they had astern duty to perform under the constitution, and that duty must override all mere personal considerations. The members of thatsupreme court were all Republicans. 3 of them gave opinions adverse to the law, and one in favor of itholding it to be unconstitutional and invalid. It is contended that this case was one only involving votes for a local officer, and ought not to be allowed as an authority in the case now under consideration; that it was more State authority, and to give it any validity would be sustaining the dogma of“ State rights.” I should be sorry if any gentleman possessed nerves sufficiently weak to be frightened by this; yet I knowthat in the ast every species of fallacious reasoning, as well)“ perversion of the ordinary signification of language, has been resorted to to sustain the various positions assumed to thwart the evident object of the constitution. Whether this decision involved any question of State rights, accordin as that subject hasbeen bruited upon this floor or years past, I must confess I am unable to determine. But it is certain it does concern those great fundamental rights of the people, upon which depend the preservation and the perpetuity of our grand system of free representative governmentthe inculcating a respect for the laws and an obedience to the interpretation given them by the constituted authorities of the States. Each State judiciary has a right to interpret aState constitution, and the interpretation given it is not only binding in the State, but is recognized and respected by all other bodies. such ins ever been the radtice in this country. such is the established rule in theSCOTUS Story, in his work on the constitution, section 385, upon this point says: "We find the power to construe the constitution expressly confided to the judicial Dept, without any limitation or qualification as to its conclusiveness.” In 1844 the supreme court of Michigan pronounced the general banking law of that State unconstitution al. Afterward, some parties, dissatisfied with the holding of the State court upon the question, brought suit in the Federal court, an the case was appealed to the SCOTUS In giving the opinion in the latter court the Chief Justice It said: is the established doctrine of this court that it will adopt and follow the decisions of thestate courts in the construction of their own constitution sandstat utes. When that construction has been settled by the decision of its highestJudicial tribune. ”7Howard, 812. The “highest judicial tribunal” of Michigan ronounced this law unconstitution al, holdingt at Michigan voters could only vote in the townships or wards in which they resided, and that votes cast in any other place were invalid. The position of those judges, their familiarity with the Michigan constitution and the Michi gun statutes gave them opportunity to be better informed concerning the provisions and requirements of that constitution and the validity of this law than can be had by those who proba bly never read either, and their opinion should be respected, obeyed, and followed, even by the Congress of the U.S. To show that they took into consideration the votes cast for Federal as well as State officers, lot me call your attention to a few extracts Q from their opinions. On page 9Of the printed papers in this case Justice Christiancy says: "Does the constitution prohibit the Legislature from authorizing, as they purport to have done by this act, the qualified electors of this State who may be in the military servwe of this State, or of the U.S. to vote for officers of the State and national Governmentat any other placethan the township in which they resgcctively jeside, and while they are absentfrom such towns ipI" Again, on page 10, speaking of the provisions of the constitution of 1835, he says: “Under this provision on elector might vote for any State officer, and for President and VEEP, at any place in the State.” and in response to the question previously propounded by himself, after a course of reasoning unanswerable, he says: 1 " Now, I cannot bring myselfto doubt that, in view of the amendment of 1839, avowedly for the purpose Of confining the clectors right to vote within the township of his residence, this revision of the present constitution. So similar in its anguageand apparent purpose, was understood by the people as intended to have thesome effect, so far asrcgar s the placeand not of voting. I am entircly satislied that the people must have understood both to deny everyclect r the right of voting at any other placo than the township or ward of his residence, or while absent from such residence. am therefore, reluctantly brought to the conclusion that the act is in direct conflict with the constitution, and for this reasonvoid.” The act is riot valid for any purpose, neither State nor national, but vOid, a soluiely vOid. Justice Cooley in giving his views is equally explicit, and I Wish particularly to call your attention to his opinion to show that he had congressional votes in his mind at the time of announcing it, and that he at least did not believe that an election for members of Congress was separate and distinct from one for State officcrs. His opinion evinces that he took a broad view of the subjectmatter, and came to the honest conclusion that the law was VOid for all purposes. On page 15, he says: “We find, then, on looking into this history, thul the constitution of1835, alter ffxincthe unliliciilions of electors. added the negativeclause. t int no such gitizen or inhabitant shall be entitled to vote. except in the district, county, ortownship in which he shall actually resideat the time of such election.” (Article 2, section one.) The evil supposedto (:XISLunder the prevmon was, that on elector might vote. any whereinlthe election district, and, usthat district for the election of State officeiswas the wholcStalc, and county officers the whole county, lie IlliKhl for those others vote anywhere in the State or county, as he might nl sofor memberof Congressanywhereiu the conercssionzil district and the usual safeguards. by challenge, &c., were rendered of little value. it hesaw fit to vote where personally unknown. the people rcrnediedthat evil by an amendment, adoptediiilttilli, which substitutedfor the words distrirt. county, or township, the words “townshipor wnrd, thusclearly requiring the personalpresenceof the elector in the township or wardo1hisresidencensncondition of the right to vote. " This is clear and explicit. He briefly refers to the changes made in the various constitutions, and substantially sa 5 that under that of 1835 a man might vote or member of congress at any place in the congrcsSional district, and to remedy the enls engendered by the lat itude of the provisions of that instrument, the amendment. Of 1839 was adopted, (and which a mendment is carried to the existing constitution) “requiring the personal presence of the elector in the township or ward of his residence as a condition of his right to vote.” Right to vote! For what? The portion of the sentence immediately precedin shows that he distinctly refers to a member o Congress. Justice Gampbell in givmg his opinion, is equally explicit. He says: "By examining the section we find that it makes provision for every possible election which can bed at all, under the authority of the State: No citizen or inhabitant shall bean elector or entitledto vote at any election. Unless heshall comewithin the subsequent provisions. In the nextplace everyclect on mustbe in sometownshipor ward: for the voter, in order to vote at any clection, must offerto vote, in the township or ward in which he has resided ten days n extprcceding such clection. Whether he ivesin his voteon the spot, or whether it is given in bet somewhere clse. to ccome by some legal construction a vote in the township. he mustvote at the election in the towiiship or not at all; for thus far thereis nopossibilityof misconstruction. Again. the place in which he ollors to vote is of necessitythe placewherehe votes, if the offer is accededto, fortha offer must be madeto someone authorized to accept it; and whcnitcccpted the vote is complete; for the vote is by thissectionmadethe act of theolect rhun self: and when his offeredballot is accepted, there In no other notwhich he can perform to make it operative. That the township is a necessaryplace for the vital purpose of the law is manifest. for no olfer to vote in any other township but that of the voters residence is permitted by the constitution and it being a necessaryplace for electionpurposes and the only place which is referredto, it may be necessary to considerwhat purposesare to be subservedby any rules of locality: for wecannot be permitted to suppose that a restriction has been imposed Without meaning; neither are we at liberty to disregard any word or phrase which has beeninserted in the supr“emItelaw of the State. has not been deniedby any onc, nor do I think it can be reasonablydoubted. that the 1st impression anyone would receivefrom reading this section Wouldbe that the voter must attend the election his own township.” I have given from the opinion of the judges sufficient to show that they were very decided relative to the utter invalidity of the law, and that they made no discrimination in any elective office of or in the State. It was as well known to themas to us that Congressmen are elected by the some voters, and it: as it is said by Justice Christiancy, ” the people must have understood both to deny every elector the right of voting at any other place than the towns ip or ward of his residence or while absent from such residence,” I would ask in all sincerity how can votes so cast be properly counted and allowed? Is this body to take this matter wholly from the control of the States? But the “bugbear” of State rights has been in voked, as if this would frighten men from their sense of prepriety and arouse a spirit of determination to resist the State constitution and prostrate the salutary barriers the people have placed in their organic laws to protect the bal lotbox. I trust the Congress of the U.S. will not, prior to the passage of some general law applicable to all the States, change from the practice that has long prevailed, as sume to set aside the provisions of a State constitution, and ignore the decisions of a State court. I might her! leave my case and submit it for your arbitrament, were it not that I deemed the construction erroneous attempted to be put upon the Federal constitution. I claim no perfection for my own views, but believing I have both the Federal and State constitutions with me, as well as the precedents in election cases, I shall briefly continue my examination of the objections urged, and attempt their refutation. I do not pretend that all my citations of authorities are applicable to my entire case, but that from each can he leaned principles tending to satisfy an impartia person that law and justice are with me. Neither do I pretend that any of, the cases are precisely like the on; under consideration, for until within the last 4 years we have had no laws in this country authorizing votingfor Representatives in this House out side of the limits of a State. I am aware, too, that an adoption of some of the principles for which I contend will affect many individuals upon this floor; but the consciousness that I am right causes me to rise above all personal considerations, and regardless of the prejudices or interests of others give my own Views upon the questions involved. I shall insist, Mr. Speaker, that Congress, even under that provision of the constitution a“uthorizing this body to fix the “times ” and places” for holding elections, cannot fix that place outside of and beyond the State affected. little is said upon this subject in the debates in the Convention to form the Federal Constitution. One of the rules for the construction of law, when a doubt may exist as to the meaning, is to examine the practices and the cus toms of the people at the time of its adOption. When the clause underconsideration was placed in the Federal constitution, our ancestors had just thrown off the yoke of England, and they were eagleeyed in their endeavors to preserve the rights of the people. The members of that Convention had all been elected by the various State Legislatures; and, prior to the meeting of the 1st Congress under the constitution, all the members of Congress had been so elected by the various colonial and the succeeding State 1866. 82:5 Legislatures. When this provision was under l discussion, the debates show it was the intention to have the Senate elected by the State Legislatures, and the House ofRepresentatives directly by the people of the States; and to edectually secure this measure, it was provided thatit should “ be composedof members chosen I every 2nd year by the people of the several 1 States;” and to carry the election directly to them the clause that, “the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature, ” was inserted in the Federal constitution. My view of this is that it was intended to include every disability that was imposed upon the electors of a representative in a State Legislature. In other words, that 3 every person who could notvote for such representative was disqualified to vote for Represent 3 ative in Congress, no matter from what cause i this arose, and that voters were restricted to 1 their homes in voting. In this view, place” be 1 came an indispensable “ qualification, ” equally l Il ll l with age, sex, color, or the possession of property. Prior to the assembling of that Convention every member of the State Legislatures, from the earliest settlement of the various colonies, had been elected by the voters within their vallOllS townships and districts. such a practice as has been adopted in many of the States recently was an unheardof one. The mannerin which their elections had been conducted at, their various homes was in the minds of the members of that Convention, and though they were well informed of the fact of the supposed omnipotence of Parliament, and the general powers in many cases attempted to be exercised, in various lawmaking bodies, their sole object appears to have been to bring voting directly home to the people, where every violation could be punished. The language they taken in connection. with their customsa, daoptmedit, s. of no other construction, and permits no divided ballotbox. As I have said, little can be found in the various debates in the national and State conventions to form and adopt the constitution, that Will enlighten us upon this subject, except in of Massachusetts. In that body the provision authorizing Congress to fix the place of holding elections was severely animadverted upon by several of the members, and their fears were aroused that Congress might assume unreasonable and unjustifiable control over this matter. To show the understanding that then prevailed I Wish to call your attention tea few extracts from the debates in that State, found in 2 Elliots Debates, pages 59431: “Judge Sumner, in his remarks relative to this 4th section, demonstrated the absurdity of thesuppositionthatCongresswould removethepluccof election to remoteparts of the State, kc. " Mr. West said, An argument which provestoo much. it is said, provesnot iing. Somesay Congress mayreine ve the placeof clect onto the Stiiteof SCarolina: this is inconsistent With the words of the constitution, which says. thnt the election in each State shall be prescribed by the Legislature thereof kc" and that representation shall be apportioned accordingto numbers; it will frustrate the endof the constitution, and is a reflection on the gentleman who formed it. “Captain Snow said, It has beensaid, Mr. president, that thereis too much powerdelegatedto congress by the section under consideration. I doubt it; think power the hinge on which the whole constitution turns. Gentlemen have talked about Congress moving the placoof election from Georgia to the Mo hawk river, but I never can believe it. I will ven ture to conjecturewe shall have some honest mon in our Congress. We road there were 2 who brought ngood report, Calcb and Joshua. Now. if therearebut 2 in congress who are honest men, and Congress should attempt to do what the gentlemensay they Will, (which will be high trciison) they will bring a report of it, and I stand ready to leave my wife and family, sling my knapsack, travel westwardtocut their headsoff. ” These expressions of Opinion of the power of Congress upon this subject are conclusive that they understood that the elections could be ordered to be held only within the limits of a State, and though an error was committed by one of the gent emen in his reference to the clause, simply in the punctuation, ycttheir construction is plainly manifestthat the electors were to be restricted, as I have stated, to voting within the limits of their State. As both congress and the State Legislatures derive their authority for fixing a place of voting from the same clause of the federal constitution, it follows, as a direct legitimate consequence, that if one body be restricted the disability inevita bly applies to the other. From the tenor of the debate I have read, and the jealous spirit of our. ancestors upon every question where their political rights and privileges were involved, I can assert without fear of successful contradiction that if an intimation had then been given that this innocent clause permitted either congress or a State Legislature to order an election for one of the States in this Union beyond the bounds thereof, the adoption of the constitution would have been jeopardized. Still, it is insisted that a State Legislature may fix the “ place” of voting without restriction, and I am aware that such has been the decision of the judicial tribunals of a few of the States. such was the opinion of the judges in Michigan, if the Legislature had not been restrained by the State constitution. Yith all due deference to the able and learned gentle men who have given those opinions, Ishu lmost respectfully dissent from their conclusions. According to the election laws of Michigan that have been in force for years, the place of holding an election is known 6 months previously to every voter in a town or ward, and he can prepare his business so as to be present at the “p ace” designated. According to the provisions of the soldiers. voting lawthe “place” is unknown until the moment of the opening of the polls, and then the knowledge of the fact could easil be confined to a favored few, thus defeating the ostensible object of the law. I will give the sections entire referring to this point: “Size. 2. Everysoldier belonging to Michigan regimentsand batteriesor companiesin the military service of this State or of the U.S., orvoluntcer soldiers, residentsof M Michigan, bolongingtoregiments. batteries, or companies, present on the day of election from other States, including officers and their staffs, surgeonsand asst surgeons, chaplains and commissionersl ponited underthis act, shall, if possessedof the qun ifications set forth in sectionone of this act, be entitled to the benefitsof the provisions th“ereof.” Sac. 7. At the electionsherein provided for n. poll shall be opened at every place, whether Within o: without the State, where a regiment, battalion, battery, o r compan of Michigan soldiers may befound, orstationed. an at such electionall)crsonsmayvote who are theretoentitled bylaw and y the provisions of this not. “Sec. 8. Any company, or detachedportion of ii. regimentorcompauics, ilnot practicable orall to vote together, may open a separatepoll, and the plectors presentshall choosefrom their number 3 inspect ors of election from the qualified electors present, wh“oseduty it shall be to not. SEC. ll. The inspectors of election shall appointthe clerks of the clection.” “SEC. 12. The polls shall he openediitsunrise, oras soon thereafter as practicable, and shall remaine pen at least 3 hours; and ifnce essary in the opinion of the inspectors, in order to receive the ballots of all the electors, they may keep the polls open until 5 clock p. m and no longer. Proclamation thereof shall be madeat or before the opening of the polls, and one hour beforeclosing them.” The foregoing sections contain all there is tending to inform persbns as towhere the place of election will be held. Can it be possible that under the clause of the Federal constitution authorizing either the State Legislature or Congress to prescribe the “places” of bolding the elections, such an uncertain, migratory poll as is here provided for was contemplated? do not believe it. No such intention as this ever entered the minds of one of those stern patriots who participated in the formation of our national constitution. When they inserted and adopted that provision they intended to confine the voting within the respective States, as the practice had prior thereto been, and not to permit Congress nor the State authorities to construct a perambulatory ballotbox that might traverse the habitable globe and be be yond the jurisdiction of State control. I will go as far as anyone in aiding, assisting, or carin forour gallant soldiers. I voted in the last congress for almost every proposition for their benefit, or to ameliorate their condition; but our devotion to them does not require us to destroy all the safeguards our constitution has provided for its protection and preservation. Our soldiers have gone forth with the patriotic object of sustaining the constitution and Government; and it is not required of us that we shall strike a parricidal blow at that instrument, weaken it in one of its most essential arts to evince our frenzied de votion. They have not asked the sacrifice. It has been the work of enthusiastsof dema gogues. A true, devoted soldier only demands of us that we, in our various stations, should preserve the Government in its pristine purity at home, if possible, whilehe does his part in gopgending with armed foes upon the battle e. In this connection, before proceeding fuiL ther with authorities in my own behalf, I will examine the arguments adduced and the authorities cited in opposing my claim. The whole reliance against me is upon that clause of the Federal constitution providing “ the times, places, &c., of holding elections, to be prescribed in each State by the Legislatures thereof.” A fruitful theme of discussion inight; be here o ened as to what constitutes a “ e gislatnre within the meaning of the Federal constitution, as is suggested by the above cited clause. If the passage of a bill is of no avail until the signature of the State Executive is obtained thereto, then these words lose all the otency attempted to be ascribed to them. I by the words is only meant the action of the Senate and HoRep of a State, then an act passed would have no validity under the constitution of Michigan, and none of the machinery requisite to put it in motion could be enforced, and it would require congressional legislation to give it that vitality. I do not propose to enlarge upon this subject, and having called your attention to it, I will proceed to the consideration of the other arguments employed. It will have been observed that the whole reliance against me is based upon the clause I have last cited, and that places the whole action upon this matter in the hands of the Legislature, beyond the control of the people, speak in in their constitution. To do away with the eflect of the decision in Michigan, the following extract from Justice Campbells Opinion is cited: “The case is happily free from one class of queetions which sometimesmay introducc confusion. The ordinary disutesconce rniiiirthe distribution of pow er between the people and theii”Lrious Depts and accics of governmentdo not arise in the present conroversy. It is conceded that the power of regulating the time and mannerofclect ons, and the places where they may he held, is one which is legislative in its nature and belongsto that bodywhic is intrusted with the general legislative authority. unless the constitution haslimited or destroyedthis control overit and we are only concerned. therefore, in determining whether the constitution of Michigan hasprevented the State Legislature from excrcisin complete control over the locality of elections, nn whether, if such control is limited, the limitation is applicable to the subject before us.” What consolation in opposition to my claim can be derived from this extract is more than I can divine. In attempting to make it applicable, the 1st portion is emphasized, an the clause “unless the constitution has limited or destroyed the control over it” is wholly ignored. Let me call your attention to the emphatic statement of the question by the judge, that they “were only concerned in determining whether the constitution of Michigan had prevented the v Legislature from exercising complete control Over the localit of clect ons, ” and the emphatic affirmative with which this pregnant question was answered. I have not pretende that if there were no restrictive words in our State constitution, but that the Legislature midlitpro vide for the holding an election anyW ere in the district" but with those limitations they have no such power. I. The case of Biddle and Richard vs. Wing, in Clarke and Halls Election Cases, also cited, contains no principle applicable to the cXisting contest. That portion of the report: relating to the position assumed by Richard is what is I relied upon. An examination of the facts in this i case shows that a number of Richards friends, 5 as he alleges, were deterred from voting by reason of the interference of the deputy sheriff and constables in the city of Detroit, under pretense of keeping the peace, and by that means he was prevented receiving a majority of the votes. 1here were 3 candidates, one, Wing, receiving 728 votes, another, Biddle, 732, and Richard 722. He did not pretend he had a majority, but that he would have bad if it had not been for the interference of the officers. In their report the committee say: “They are of the opinion that the duty assigned to them does not imposeon them an examination of the causeswhich mayhave prevented any candidate from getting a sufficient number of votesto entitle him to ascat. They considerthat itisonly required of them to ascertain who had the greatest number of legal votes actually given at the election. An election is the actof sclect ng, on the partoftho electors. paperson for an office of trust.” No one can dispute the principle contained in this report; but where is its applicability to the present case? Because a row occurred at an election precinct, and voters were frightened away and a committee believe they cannot go behind the election returns and inquire how men would have voted, but determine the case upon those actually given and so place that fact upon record, therefore, an argument is attempted to be adduced that votes cast in the southern States for a Michigan Congressman, in defiance of her constitution, if those voting would have been electors if at their homes in that State, are to be held valid. In the case cited, the committee distinctly say one of their duties is to ascertain who had the greatest number of “legal votes.” In my case I am insisting that the soldiers votes were not legal. If those electors were at the polls and had refrained from voting, they would none the less have been citizens and electors, and it is claimed that the soldiers who voted were electors of Michigan. Grant it. The members of this House are electors at their several places of resi dence, and if an election should ta e place during the session of Congress, they would none the less be electors, but on account of their ab sence from the polls they could not exercise the right conferred upon them. They neither gain nor lose a residence by their position; but while absent from their "town or ward” the exercise of the right is in abeyance. Scarcely an election has ever been held in any precinct but that some citizens, qualified voters therein, have been prevented by ortuitous circumstances the exercise of one of the greatest privileges conferred upon man. No valid argument can be gleaned from such an authority as this, adverse to the justice of my claim to a seat. It was well said by the court in Pennsylvania in the case of Chase vs. Miller: “The learn ed judge doprecatesa construction that shall disfranchise our soldiers. Itstrikes usthat this is an inaccurate uso of language. The constitution would disfranchise no qualified voter; but to secure purity of election. it would have its voters in the place whore they are best known on electionday. If a voter voluntarily stays at home or goes ajourncy, orjoins the arm of his country can it be said that the constitution as disfranchiso him? 4 of the Judges of this court, living in other partsof thestate, find themselveson the day of every presidential clect on in the city of Pittsburg, where their official duties take them and where the are not permitted to vote. Have they a right to c argo the constitution with disfraiicliising them? Is not the truth rather this, that they have voluntarily assumedduties that are inconsistent with the right of suffrage for the time being? such is our case and such is the case with the volunteers in the Army. The right of suffruge is carefully preservedfor both them and us. to be enjoyed when wereturn to the places which the constitution has appomtedfor its exercise. It is forcing a gratuitous assumptionupon the constitution to treat it; itsintending that the volunteer in the public ser Viceshall carry his elective franchise with him whore over his duties require him to go.” A decision of the supreme court of Michigan, made at a recent term, involving the constitutionality of a law passed at the session of 1865, has also been referred to. The majority that passed one of the acts of that session was made up of several of the individuals who were elected by the votes of the soldiers and who were admitted to seats in that body. The valid various reasons, and among them, one of the points was, that without the votes of those mem rs elected by those cast bevond the state, the act would have been defeate. The court held, and very proped too, that they could not go back of the act or the purpose of examining into the qualifications oi3 the members. The law books are full of cases justifying this doctrine, and, sir, it would be the height of folly to have any other rule prevail. The validity of the acts of those who assume to perform the functions of an office under a “color” of authority for the holding the same, are facts too well known to every legal gentleman in this House for meto waste time in their discussion. While alegislative body is madea “judge” of the qualifications of its members, and whether from mistake, ignorance, or corruption, asin the case I Shllll show, of Michigan, there is no power to go behind their acts and review their proceed in s. gIhe action of the Michigan Legislature has also been adduced in behalf of my competitor, ns affording a reason why this body“ should retain him in the seat. In the Michigan constitution is found the same provision that is contained in every one, I believe, in this country: elections and Hreotuusre ns matyitjusrmineemofbtehres; qualifications and that they construe as affording them the largestliberty foraction in the premises. While I would not abridge any of the egitimate powers that a legislative body ought to possess, I cbn tend the members are just as much bound by rules and established precedents as is a court of justice. Referring to the Federal Constitution, Judge Kent (1 Commentaries, 252) says: "Each House is madethesolojudge of the election, returns and qualifications of its members. The same poweris vestedin the British House of Commons and in the legislatiires of thescveral States: and there is no other ody known to the constitution to which such a power might safely be trusted. It is requisite to preservea pure and genuine representation, and to control the evils of irregular, corrupt and tumult uouselections: and aseach Houseactsin those cases in a udicial character. its decisionsought to boregulate by "knownprinciples oflaw and strictly adhered to for the saltcof unilormity and certainty.” This is only a repetition of established law upon this subject; and to suit their own purposes a construction was given it by the legislaure of Michigan most unwarrantable and reprehensible. Before commenting upon that action, I will give a brief history oft is low. It was 1st agitated during the session ofl803 and the proper committee of the House reported adverse y to it. They say “Thero is no power in Michigan that can authorize the opening of election polls in an regiment, battal ion or company of Michigan sol iers while in the service of the General. Government outside of the State.” and after exhaustin the subject of its unconstitutionality, they c ose by saying “Your coinmittcc believe the passageof this bill would be unconstitutional as well as impracticable.” The bill failed, and passed over to the session of 1864, at which time, after much o position, for the reason stated, it became a aw. When the Legislature convened in 1865, ten members of the House and yfour of the Senate presented themselves as having been elected y the soldiers vote, in accordance with its provisions. Thiswas prior to the decision of the supreme court of Michigan. A few of the seats of those persons were contested in each House, but those having a majority of all the votes were admitted. A few weeks after this the law was pronounced unconstitution al, and then all those elected by the home vote appeared and claimed their seats. The committee of the Senate to whom the matter was referred reported unanimously in favor of abiding by the decision of the court, and admitting the contestants. In their able report, giving their own as well as the opinion entertaiue upon this subject by all lawabiding people, they say: “The contestantsallegethat the votescastbyvirtuc of that act are illegal and rest their claims upon that point alone, an Support their position byity of that law was subsequently attacked for re fcmug to a decision of thesupremecourt of our tats pronouncing that act unconstitutionaland the votes castunder it void. Iftbo decision is correct it should at once put an end to the controversy. for no man can acquireoflico by meansof illegal ntes.” "But the decision of our highest judicial tribunal as to the validity of the soldiers suffrage law has beenmade, not at the instance of the court, but in the performanceof aduty imposed by the constitution.” “ t” " The decision hashe cometherule of action. bywhich. by the requirement! of the constitution. the people. the Executive and the judiciary itself are to c guided. " But in the judgment of your committee. the petitioners. whosenamesappearbelow. areentitled to the seats in question.” Yet, notwithstanding this unanimous report of the committee, by a tie vote in each case, 3 of the modest Senators voting each time, as it were, in his own case, the decision of the cOurt was ignored. In the House, a majority of the committee reported in favor of treating the decision as a nullit, basin that action principally upon the fact that that ody had, at the commencement of the session, acted upon and adjudicated the question, and that they would not reconsider it. hat I may do no injustice to their report and to show the action of the Legislature can have no influence in my case, I will otfer a few extracts: “At the commencement of the present sessionit appoaredby someof the ccrtilicntes heldbymembers and petitions presentedbycontestantsclaiming seats that the only grounds on which seatswerecontested was, that the law authorizing sobdicis to vote when personally absent from the township in which they resided had beenenactedby the Legislature in violation of the constitution of this State. This was the direct questionand only question presentedfor the House to as upon. "This oiisc, in itsiudgment and decision, passed fully upon that question, and did judicially determine and declare that said law. entitled An netto enable the qualified electorsof this State. in the military serVice, to vote at certain elections. 8:12. was a vnli law, and that the same was not a violution of the constitution. Under iind by virtueof said jiidgincataml decision, the rights of membership became vested in all those whose elections depended upon the votes cast under and by virtue offiiiid law and in the opinion of your committee the question has become reli dicata and shouldtbo adhered to by this legislative body With even more tenacity than exhi ited by courts of law in adhering to theii –judicial judgment and determinations. “ Prior to the decision of the supreme court. tlnl House had decided that the soldiers vote should b9 pe“rmittedtotake effectin 4 severalcases. We neither odor to nor accept uaychullen e from them which may lead to a conthet. Our judginent must control as to the election ofour members: their judgment by the law of the land will control the action of all the inferior courts. the executive officers of the State, and the people in all the private walks of life. "Ihe cticct of their judgment will be that no electioncan again be held under the lawin question, because the officerswho carryon the machinery of an election are properly under the control and niust yicld their igdgment to that of the courts. ut, believing the questionto have been here tofore settled, finally adjudicated. theyhave directed their chairman to report the several lCllllOilS and accompanying documents, with the followiii preamble and resolutions. the resolutions being num cred from one to ten, inclusive: “Wherons by the constitution of Michigan. the i n dicial powerand authority to “judge of qualifications. election and return of members are vested in each House of the Legislature; and whereas at the coin mence ment of this session. in judging of the election of members. whose right to seals in this House de pended upon the legality and validityof the soldiers vote underthe not entitled Anlaet tnciiiible the qualilied electorsof this State, in t as military scryjcc, to vote at certain clect ons. &c. it was then judicially declared by this House. that said votes should be regarded in cteruiining the questionof election. upon which determination and decisionmemberswere adm"itted to seatson this floor: lheretoro, 1. Resolved. That in the opinion and judgment of this House. it would bea dangerousand unjustifiable exerciseof power on the part of this body to revoke and set asi c said determination and decision and thereby eject from this House such membersas may 101d their seats by virtuc of the solrliers votes, out n pursuance of the not above recited. ". From the foregoing it appears they treated the whole subject as res adjudicata, and that it would be a dangerous proceeding for them to interfere with and review their acts. I have little comment to make atthis time concerning this action of the Michigan Legislature. Ithas become a part of the history of our State. Suffice it to say, that the principle then established, if perSisted in and accepted as a precedent in the future, would unsettle every equi table rule of action that onght to obtain in legislative bodies, and bringt em, as it did that Legislature, into utter contempt. Though that 1866. 821 Legislature was 3/4ths Republican their action was not sustained by the party press in the State, and their leading papereven chargedthem with “ lax morals" and dishonorable motives in admitting those members: Extract mm the ddrmt Advertiser and Tribune. Feb ruary, "We suppose however, that the timefor argument and appeal areboth passed and that lax morals and reckless partisan leadership have placed the legislaturc. even while we now write, in nu irretrievally false position. If so. it is a matter of proud consciousness that the Republican masses are uncontaminated. They will submitto the decisionof the liighest court of the State and repudiate the men who defy it. Eve member of the Legislature who votes to defy the ccision of the supreme court thereby dips his political grave and sets up his tombstone. l e may take a long farewell of all his ambitious. The people could forgive ll18e rror and infatuation, were it not that so intirm o. udzment and feeblea moral sensemust ever render iselevation ispublic danger. We make no menace or forge no malediction. but claim to speak in the voice of prophecy that which is inevitable.” A distivnctiovn has also been made between the power of the people in forming a State constitution and that of the Legislature created by it, deriving its authority from its provisionshnnd acting unor it. It is asserted that the Legislature have full authority, derived from the federal constitution, irrespective and in defiance of the provisions or limitations in a State constitution, to fix the place ofvoting where they please, and that the people, in their organic law, cannot makc that “place” of voting a qualification without infringing the Federal constitution. to sustain this theory no adjudicated authority can be found, and the only reference of any weight is in one of the sections of Story, in which he is merely giving the language of the Federal constitution. faking his whole chapter, the true meaning is, that what was intended in giving the State Legislature power to fix the time and "place, ” was simply conferring it upon the lawmaking power ofu State. In refemug to qualifications, Story says: “Upon this clause, which was possibly adopted by I. unanimous vote, the Federalist has remarked. the prestitshioant lmayadweitbhy in the Convention aItppmeuasrst tboeb satisfactory to every State. becauseitis conformable to the standard already established by the State itself. It will be safe to the U.S. because bein fixed by the State constitution s, it is not alterable y the State government and it cannot be feared that the people of the States will alter this part of their constitution in such a manner as to abridge their rights, secured to them by the Federal constitution. "500tion 586. This extractI give to show both the opinion of Judge Story and the authors of the Federal ist, that this whole power of defining “ qualifications” was to be left in the care of the people of the States, to be incorporated in their organic law, and to be beyond the reach of their Legislatures. This extract must also be taken in connection with what is said in the subsequent section as to the Legislatures controlling the time and places of elections. In a note reference is made to the fact “that though in Newengland the voters generally give tieir votes in t ie townships where they reside, in the southern and western States there are few towns and the elections are held in counties, ” &c. I deem this ununswerable in giving a true meaning to the text and that it was never intended to make a mere legislature above the people, and allow power to be exercised for the election of a Representative in Congress that they were debarred from using for all other purposes. To further sustain this opinion, I cite Curtis On the constitution, 200: “" If the right of voting for any class of Federal ofli carswere to be in each State the sameasthat given bgitheState laws for the electionof any class of  State o cers. it was quite essential that the States should surrenderto the General Government the powertode terminc asto personsof foreign birth.” “The committee of detail. after nreview of all these considerations, presented a schemc that. waswell adaptedto meetthe difficultiesof the case. They proposedthat the some persons who by the laws of the several States were admitted to vote for membersof the most numerous branch of their own Legislatures should have the right to vote for the Representatives inIConirress.” " If then theState constitutions would refrain from imposingontho electors it proorty unlification for the very purpose of including ii tow cm the Statesmight concede the right of Voting within their respective limits, ” to. This all proves conclusively that it was the intention of the framers of the Federal constitution that the entire subject of elections and qualifications be remitted to the control of the people of the several States. to be exercised by them as their judgment should dictate, and if they placed any restrictions, conditions, or qualifications in their constitution s, the Legislature was debarred from removing them. As early as 1811 a case was decided in the supreme court of Massachusetts involving this qpestion of qualifications. In the opinion of the court, given by Chief Justice Parker, is the following: “But the qualifications of electors are settled by the constitution sof the U.S and of this commonwealth, and there is no power. while those constitutions remain, to add to or diminish from those qualifications. “By the constitution of the U.S. the electorsof a Representative in Congroai are to have the qualifications requisite for electors of the iuost numerous branch of the state Legislature: and by the constitution of this State, oneof the qualifications for an elector of a Representative is a residence in the town where he gives his vote for the space of one gaar next precedingan election. ”11Mmuachwem, and in the case already cited from Pennsylvania, 6 Wright, 424, the court in giving the opinion said: "These legislative regulations of residence are in accordance with that interpretation of the Constitution suggested alpove, and showclearly howcssentially the place of v0ing has entered into the qualifica tiopsof suffrage.” such has always been the doctrine, and no court, nor any legislative body, has prior to this attempted to distinguish between a “qualification, a “condition, ”or a “requisite” of voting until it became essential to prevent my obtaining the seat to which I am justly entitled. The Federal and State constitutions have been taken and construed together as one. Another reply to the theory assumed is, t for 3/4ths of a century during which our Government has existed under the constitution, no attempt has been made by any State Legislature, I believe, to make a distinction between the 2 classes of electors. It has always been held that a man, debarred from any cause from voting for one, could not vote for the other and while this question of permitting soldiers to vote in the fied has been agitated, no distinction has been made in any State so far as I can learn between these 2 classes. Many of the courts of the various States have held these laws unconstitutional sometimes a veto has intervened to arrest them, but noingenuity, until my case arose, has tortured this provision of the Federal constitution into making a distinction so that an elector could vote for a Congressman and not for a State officer. Permit me to suggest that if a distinction is to be made, ought it uotto be in a law specially adapted to the purpose? The Michigan law was not passed merely to enable soldiers to vote for Representatives in Congress, but it was a general election law for all State, county, and district officers, with no reference in it to a Congressman, except in giving the manner of making the returns. It was not passed by the “Legislature, ” as defined in the theory of my o ponents, but by the lawmaking power of the state the Senate, the House, with the aproval of the Governor; the latter requirement indispensable to make it a law in Michigan, but it seems, not within the purview of the federal constitution. If that constitution is to govern in a case of this kind, and that of Michigan to be ignored, I ask in all sincerity, how you reconcile this intervention of our Governor in aiding the passage of this law? It either was or was not necessary. If the former. the law is not such as is contemplated by the Federal constitution, and the State constitution must control. If the latter, as the law was only a State affair, incidentally referring to Congressmen, and impossibleto be enforced except through the interventionof state laws and State authorities, therefore I again repeat, it was not such as was contemplated by the Federal constitution. Take either cm of the dilemma, and your law fails. There is another question connected with this law to whichl will call your attention. By the adverse decision of the supreme court of Michigan, it, for an purpose, is no authority. The report of the I House committee, which I have a ready quoted, referring to it, contains the following: "The effect of their judgment will be that no cleotion can again be held under the law in question, because the officers who carry on the machiner of"on election are iroperly under the control nni must yield their in gmentto that of the courts.” The author of this has just been confirmed as a U.S. district attorney, and lie isa lawyer of some eminence in western Michigan. Admit Mr. Trowbridge, and your action will present this anomalous feature: a member is received under a law continuing unrepeiiled, but by the circumstances surrounding it no subsequent votes can again be cast for another member of this House. It is not for me to unravel this web or remedy the difficulty; I take the law and the fact as the record presents them. Many other nice distinctions and disciminations tire urged in opposition to my claim. My experience in life has taught me that no legal or constitutional question has et arisen but that it has found advocates for the most whimsical, fantastic, and forced construction. unfortunately for me, apartisan political question has become involved with the facts in this case; and though individuals may honestly labor to rid themselves of its deleterious influence in adjudicating the matter, yet we all know the potency of preconceived ideas, and the murky atmosphere with which every object is surrounded that is examined while on er their in fluence. I cannot follow all these refinements through their various ramifications. Sullice it to say, where there is a will there is away, and aningenious, inquisitive person, ifinclined, can always satisfy himself in giving the most sophis tical of reasons in justification of his action in any given case. care not what effect such reasoning may have upon this House, or how prejudicial to my cause it may he, in my opinion i believe no sufficient reason has been or can be iresented why my opponent should be entitle to retain his seat. Having fully examined the various objections, I will now call your attention to a few adjudicated cases. The question immediately involved in the present case has before this been twice before congress, and in both cases decided in accordance with the principles for which I am contending. I believe those decisions were strictly correct, and that none other could have been made consonant with the intentions of the frnmers of our Government. The same general idea i that the State constitutions were paramount in prescribing the place of holding an vades and controls in election case csleeextitoennfpeinr back over 50 years. It is a welfestablishe maxim in law that “principles should govern, ” and that State courts should construe and control State constitution s. The Michigan State court has construed the State constitution and rejected the votes such as were cast against me. I will cite and comment upon the following cases to show the rule that this body has here tofore followed. In Farlee vs. Runk, arising in 1844, in the 29th Congress, it appeared that by counting certain votes cast y students at Princeton, Mr. Bank had a majority. A law of NewJersey was passed March 13, 1844, prohibiting students from votingr except at the it place of residence. During the same year a new constitution was adopted, and in the article on suffrage were provisions more liberal than those contained in the statutes. This constitution went into effect September 2, 1844, and in the November following an election was held, and the student! of that institution voted, and Mr. Bunk received 16 majority. Here was a direct conflict between the law of the Legislature of March, 1844, and the constitution of the State of septeinber, 1844, and was so treated and considered by the committee. The question of this conflict was brought before the ComElections, a committee presided over by the late VEEP Hamliii, and in their report upon the matter they say: “Under this statute the memorialist alleges that the Itiudents were expressly prohibited from voting at said a ection. “Your committee entertain a decided opinion to the contrary for in the 1st placo all doubt is atonce removed byt e concluswe circumetence that the said act waspassed the 13thday of March. 1844 and the new constitution under which this election was held. went into operation in September. 18tThl. e election taking placein November. 1844. The new constitution ft e fundamental law) was adopted after that, act and the election was held after the adoption of the new constitution.” other questions arose in the case, but this distinct one of a conflict between the act of the Legislature and aprovision of the State constitution was expressly consulcred and decided by the committee, and no abstrnse nor farfetched dogmas were permitted to override the organic law of the people, for the committee expressly say in speaking of the legislative enactment: “That sectionof the act was, in the opinion of your committee. clearly repugnant to the new constitution and of course not in force.” I now call your attention particularly to the Oregon case, the one referred to in both the majority and minority reports. With all due deference to the author ot the majority report, I cannot perceive how he makes it harmonize with his conclusion in this cause. I cannot on this occasion make more than a brief reference to this Oregon case; but I will present suffiment for a clear understanding o it. At an election held in. Inne, 1860, in accordance with the constitution of Oregon, Mr. Shiel was elected. The Legislature of that. State attempted to change the law of election so as to have it alternate in November of the year of a residential election, and the alter nate election biennially in June. For some reason this plan failed; but in November, 1860 votes were cast for Mr. Thayer and he receive the certificate of election. Now, it will be observed if the Legislature had passed the lawmaking the proused changed, then that case and mine wou d have presented the precise points, but as it was the chairman of the ComElections, the same gentleman who now holds the like position, speaking for the committee, in his able report went into a full examination of the question, and debated the point as to the power of a Legislature in making a change, and e argued ittesame as, if there were a conflict between them, and gave his reasons, reasons clear, honest, patriotic, and unanswerable, why a State constitution should not be considered a mere rope of sand to be trampled upon and set amde by a mere legislative body deriving its life, its existence, and all its authority from the coustitution it seeks to contemn. That no injustice may be done I make I full extract: "The gimmittee are of opinion that the election held for representatioin congresson the 1st ll on dey in Juue. 1860. washeld in pursuance of, and in oonfornntv With. the constitution and lays of Oreson. paidthat consequentlythe contestant is entitled to o seat.” f “Netmthstaniling this constitutional provision. that general elect one shall be heldon the 1st Mendingof June biennially. the Legislaturcol Oregonseems ohave believedthat it had power to fix anolher time for the election of rereeentativein Congress.” f “ e committeehave not deemed it necessaryto determinc what those reasnns are for. With all due respectto the opinions of the gentlemen comiosin: at Legislature. they are of opinion that this House must. nevertheless. be the final judge of the meaning of this clauseof the constitution ofOrcgon and for the reason stated. thi committee have no doubt that the constitution of the State has fixed, beyond the control oi the Legislature, the time for holding an electionfor RO reseutntiveiii Congress. at the general election to be eld bieiinially, and that at sue ition, so elec held in pursuance of the constitution, the contestantwas duly elected and in the debate in the House on this case, Mr. Dawns said. It occurs to me. sir, that that provision of the constitution of the U.S. which saysthat the time and place lhall be specified by the cuislature of each State mpant simply that the should be fixed by the conltituted authority of t leState until Congress itself should fix a time for the election in all the Stem!” It will be observed that this was not the language of the chairman but of the committee, a“nd that, after due examination of, the case, they have no doubt that the constitution of the State has fixed beyond the control of the Legislature the time of holdingan election for Representative in Congress.” Change time for place, and the case is identical with my own, and I have no doubt that the constitution of Michigan “has placed beyond the control of its Legislature the place of elect in!7 a Representative in Congress.” This was in 1861. Since that we have been making rapid strides. We live in a progressive age. When those cases were before this House State constitutions were of some avail, and their revisions were regarded as allimportant. It had not then been attempted to enervate, emas enlate, States, but the decisions of their courts, the reserved rights of the people, were para mount. I hope the congress of the U.S. will still) regard the decisions of the past, and at least hesitate before anew rule be established from which may spring a diretal progeny of errors. In concluding my remarks, I submit the following propositions: 1. That by the constitution of the U.S., and that of Michigan as defined by her supreme court, I had a majority of the legal voters. 2. That from the organization of our Government until 1861 it had never been supposed by any party, nor contended in any State, that a State Legislature had power to order an election outside of and beyond the bounds of a congressional district. 3. That longcontinued practice in a particular manner, under a constitutional provision, is authoritative in construing the same; and as the various States had pursued for nearly 80 ars the restrictive course of confining the voters to their home votin places, it affords an authority in my behalf difficult to be over come. 4. That in giving effect to a constitutional provision we must ook into the history of the times when it was framed, to ascertain what object its authors had in view; and if at that time all electors were restricted to their home votin places, it becomes an almost unanswerable act that the construction upon which I rely is the correct one. 5. That the provision in the Federal constitution authorizmg the State Legislatures to fix the times and places for holding congressional elections is to be governed by the preceding preposition, and to e construed by reference to the practice prevailing at the time of its adoption. 6. That in defining the qualifications of elect ors it was the intention of the framers to leave this whole subject with the people of the several States, allowing them to act as their judgment should dictate, and fix such prerequisites as qualifications as they deemed essential to guard the ballotbox and preserve the purity of elections. 7. That the people of Michigan, in their organic law to I protect their rights and as effect ually as possible to prevent fraud, without distinction of office, made the voting in the “township or ward” an indispensable qualification of an elector. 8. That from the authorities I have shown, the “ place” of voting has, when required, ever been held a qualification, and as it was so made by the constitution of Michigan, and the federal constitution requireslike qualifications for electors of Representatives in Congress as is required for the State Legislature, it clearly follows that in Michigan no valid votes can be cast beyond the limits of a township or ward by a voter resident therein. 9. That Congress, by settin aside this provision, and allowing votes cast by Michigan soldiers then in other States to control an election for congress, when those votes are woid for every otheer within the State, will weaken that respect for law and order that ought to beincul cased and to prevail in every free community. 10. That it is the duty of every class of people to respect the decisions of the highest judicial tribunal of a State upon a question legitimately brought before it, and though its decision be contrary to our prejudices, our judgincnt, or our wishes, yet it should be sustained as long as it is the constitutional exposition of the law of the land. 11. That it is the duty of this Congress to be governed in adjudicatin litigated cases by the established rules laid own by the courts as well as this body; and that, as the case of Farlee vs. Runk, in 1841, involved a question of conflict between the constitution of the State of NewJersey and an enactment of its Legislature, in fixing a “place” for voting; an as the report vof the honorable chairman in the Oregon case in 1861 announced the opinion of the committee upon the etieet of an attempt by the Legislature ofOregon to change the “time ” held that these questions were settledby the organic law of the State, and were beyond the control of the legislature, I therefore insist they each contain t ie essential characteristic of my own case, and they have settled in my favor the principles by which this House ought to be governed and lastly, if one of the foregoing propositions be true, my right to the seat is placed be ond a doubt.