THE ELECTION LAWS.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for the hour, viz: the consideration of the General Election bill (H. R. 203) as in Committee of the Whole; and the House, thereupon, resolved into Committee of the Whole--Mr. Wilson in the Chair--and it was ordered that the bill be considered by sections.
The first section, fixing general elections for the second Tuesday in October, was passed without amendment.
Section 2, in regard to notice; section 3, as to election boards; section 4, as to vacancies, being read--
Mr. CALKINS, of Porter, proposed to insert a clause to force parties appointed on Election Boards to serve under penalty of $25 fine.
Mr. NEFF. In his county this difficulty has not occurred, and he hoped the amendment would be voted down.
Mr. CALKINS sought by it, that the election might be carried on without being subject to contest on account of the organization of the Board.
Mr. CALDWELL objected to the amendment, that it was iron-clad, and would encumber the bill.
Mr. BELLENGER. The cases supposed would rarily occur, and the penalty was heavy. He saw no necessity for the amendment.
Mr. LINES. Most men were ready to serve on Election Boards, to pay their road tax.
Mr. CALKINS withdrew the amendment, as it seemed to meet with general opposition.
Mr. KENNEDY would like some provision in the bill by which revolutionary proceedings might be prevented.
Mr. COX. The decision of the Supreme Court was--that the regulation is advisory directory merely, not obligatory.
Mr. TAYLOR regretted that the provision of this section 4 requiring the Board to be equally divided between the two political parties is unconstitutional, because it has worked very well. In the State of Pennsylvania they provide for the election of judges of election, and avoid the constitutional restriction.
Mr. McDONALD was agreed in opinion with the gentleman from Allen, (Mr. Taylor,) and he would be glad to have a provision here like the Pennsylvania or the Iowa law--for the election of judges to servo two years.
Mr. BALLENGER. This election regulation operated for the protection of the purity of the ballot box. If we elect these, in some counties it would defeat the object by destroying the balance of parties on the board.
Mr. RHODES moved to strike that clause from the third section, which authorises the placing of two townships in one voting precinct.
Mr. SABIN. This was copied from the act of 1852, and no evil could come of it.
Mr. CALKINS, of Porter, saw that confusion would result, since the township election were to be held in the fall. The clause was stricken out.
Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 being read and passed.
Mr. TAYLOR thought the latter section should be more specific in regard to the lock.
Mr. SABIN said the lock was never to be out of the presence of the officers, and it was to be sealed also. Sections 14, 15, 16--being read--
Mr. ST. JOHN moved that in the fifteenth section it read, instead of "will," "the Board shall not adjourn," etc, and the motion was agreed to. Sections 17,18,10, 20, being read--
Mr. MITCHELL suggested that there was no provision in regard to the term of the residence of the voter in the township for any time next before the election.
Mr. SABIN. The committee left that, under the Constitution, without limitation.
Mr. COPNER moved to strike out the 20th section and insert a substitute, to this effect: Any person offering to vote may be challenged by any voter of the township; and thereupon he shall take and subscribe an oath: that he is over 21 years; has been a resident of the State 6 months and of the township for the 20 days last past, and that he is there for the purpose of making it his permanent residence; and that he has not and will not vote anywhere else in this election; and if foreign born, that he has the required residence and has declared intention of naturalization; and that the oath be returned with the papers.
Mr. McDOWELL and Mr. MARTIN of Putnam considered that the committee have done in this matter all that could be desired.
Mr. COPNER urged the necessity of his substitute for the 19th section. The point was: it is not the intention that a man shall vote where he keeps his washing merely.
Mr. BIGGS moved to strike out from the substitute that clause which declares inten- page: 206[View Page 206] tion to make the precinct the voter's permanent residence.
Mr. CONNER. Residence is the constitutional requisition, and sufficient.
After further debate by Mr. Mitchell, Mr. White insisting that the committee have acted deliberately and prudently, in that they have insisted upon nothing but residence for voting qualification--
Mr. SPEAKER MACK inquired: What is a residence? Let the committee define.
Mr. WHITE. That question could always be best answered by the voter himself. He would protect the elective franchise with the severest penalties--would make fraudulent voting a felony, punishable with two years in the penitentiary.
Mr. BALLENGER did not think the Constitution prohibits tho Legislature from making regulations as to what constitutes the voter's residence. Residence is the actual abiding in the township, and the intention to continue the same. He referred to shifting of voters from county to county under the law of 1865; and the same thing would be done under this bill if the residence be left without a distinct definition and fixing of what constitutes a residence. If this cannot be done, we might as well give up our elections.
Mr. MACK concurred in the reasoning of Mr. Ballenger, though his mind was tending to the conclusion that the constitution prohibits the restriction proposed. The constitution says if he resides in the township he is entitled to vote. To say the voter shall reside twenty days is a questionable construction of the constitution. He suggested that this section ought to be amended so as to require the challenged party to swear that he is a bona fide residenta resident in good faith.
Mr. BALLENGER. Does the gentleman believe that the Legislature can define the residence?
Mr. MACK. He did so believe, and that a good deal of difficulty might be avoided in our elections by so doing. He commended the definition, that a man's residence is what he calls his home when he is out of business. It was the intention that makes residence. If he could be satisfied that the twenty days provision is right, he would go for that; would do all he could to protect the ballot-box.
Mr. BALLENGER thought the honest men the State over were in favor of the 20 days or 30 days provision. It will be enough for us to hesitate when the courts have decided that it is prohibited by the Constitution. If we do not this, it will look like invitation to fraud.
Mr. McDONALD was in favor of such a provision, and could not see that evil can flow from it; and it would apply equally to all parties. It was merely a police regulation; and we have the right to establish regulations not prohibited by the constitution.
Mr. MARTIN, of Putnam, could vote for the restriction if it were not against the constitution. He showed that we have a decison of the Supreme Court; 9th Indiana Reports, p. 427, which he read, and he was willing to abide by it.
Mr. RHODES took the same view; but he would unite in support of a general statue defining what shall constitute a residence for all purposes not merely for the purpose of voting.
Mr. TAYLOR showed the difficulty to be as to what constitutes a change of residence: some holding that there is an interim between the time of losing his residence in one township and gaining it in another. He was of opinion that a citizen removing from one township to another does not lose his residence for a single day. And he was of opinion that the Legislature has not the province to define the word residence; but that the General Assembly should provide by statute that a man removing from one township to another shall not lose his residence in the one till he gains it in the other.
Mr. MILEE took a similar view--that the Legislature can not prescribe the restriction as to days--and that residence alone is the essential qualification. When he had concluded--
On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS the Committee rose, and--
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked and obtained leave for the committee to sit again at 2 o'clock this P. M.
On motion of Mr. ZENOR, it was ordered that Mr. Hooker's road bill [H. R. 100] be taken up and be referred to the Road Committee raised yesterday.
