exercise of the elective franchise and endangers the freedom and purity of our elections.

By the provisions of the bill the determination of the right to vote, the conduct of the elections and the returns of the canvass, are entrusted entirely to the officers at the time in command of each company, whoever they may happen to be. They will be far removed from the state, not liable to its control nor accessible to its laws. And, were it not so, they could act with impunity, because the bill provides no penalty whatever for any misconduct or wrong on their part, however gross or willful. It simply requires an oath, but affixes no penalty to the violation of it. And no provision is made for any revision and correction of their proceedings, even if wrong should clearly appear. In the determination of the right to vote the bill requires no reference to the check-list in the towns, but leaves it to be determined absolutely by the officers, from such evidence as they may be able to obtain, or may choose to hear; and although the voter may be required to testify under oath, yet such oath, however false, is not punishable with any penalty.

This brief statement shows how fully all the safeguards, which our laws so wisely and carefully throw around elections at home, are disregarded in the provisions of this bill for elections in the field where greater exposure to abuse and wrong requires additional protection. Occurrences in other states, and particularly one within our own, show that the fears suggested by these objections are not groundless. Military power has been wantonly exercised by the highest officer known to our laws, even under all the obligations of his high official position, for the proscription and disgrace of a meritorious officer, Lieut. Andrew J. Edgerly, on account of the quiet exercise of his undoubted right as a citizen voter of this state. With such an example what may we not reasonably expect under a bill like this, by which the whole conduct of an election by soldiers in the field is committed to the officers in immediate power over them?

We therefore submit the following resolution: Resolved, That the further consideration of said bill be indefinitely postponed.

HARRY BINGHAM,
JOHN G. SINCLAIR.

The question being stated-"Shall the bill be read a third time?"-Mr. Bingham moved that the reports and bill be laid on the table, and that the clerk be directed to furnish copy of the bill to each of the judges of the Supreme Court, with the

request that they confer, and report to the House, at the earliest practicable moment, their opinion upon the constitutionality of the bill.

The yeas and nays being demanded upon the motion, the vote resulted—yeas, 108; nays, 183; Mr. Bingham and the Democrats generally voting yes.

On the following day, August 11, Mr. McNeil of Hillsborough, moved to amend the bill by striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting the following:

SECTION 1. All qualified voters of the State who shall be in the actual military service of the United States on the days appointed by law for the choice of Electors of President and Vice President of the United States, and for Representatives of this State in the Congress of the United States, shall be entitled to exercise the right of suffrage for said officers in the several cities and towns from which they were enlisted.

SECT. 2. The Governor is hereby authorized and required to request the Secretary of War to grant thirty days furlough to all such qualified voters to return to their respective residences, in order to so exercise their right of suffrage, in the same way and manner in which special furloughs were granted at the last March election, provided that they shall not be pledged to vote for any particular candidate.

The yeas and nays being called on the adoption of the amendment it was defeated - yeas, 106; nays, 167.

An amendment was subsequently adopted, on motion of Mr. Sawyer of Nashua, making the act inoperative if determined unconstitutional by a majority of the Supreme Court, and making it the duty of the governer to obtain an opinion of the court upon the question, and make it public through the newspapers before the next presidential election. The bill was then passed 178 to 107.

The attention of the Legislature during this extra session was mainly directed to matters connected with, or growing out of, the Civil War, and its prosecution on the Union side, and omission should not be made of the fact, in this connection, that when a majority of the committee on the judiciary, to which had been referred, an act providing for the assumption by the State of certain expenses and indebtedness incurred by the several cities and towns in connection with the raising of troops, reported a

resolution postponing the same to the next session of the Legislature, Messrs. Bingham and Sinclair presented a minority report, recommending the passage of the act as a measure of justice to the small towns, many of which had been subjected to an undue burden of expense.

The majority report was adopted, however, by a vote of 148 to 109, the Democrats largely voting against it.

On August 16, the bill entitled "An Act to facilitate the raising of troops" being under consideration, which measure was finally passed, Mr. Bingham moved to amend by striking out the words "which said sums are to be paid in currency and not in coin," his purpose being to insure for the soldier bounty payments on a gold basis, instead of "depreciated currency" against which so much has been said in later days; but his motion was lost, 90 to 109, the Democrats in this case also largely voting in the affirmative. Toward the close of the extra session of 1864 occurred one of the most exciting and disorderly episodes ever known in the legislative history of the State. The soldiers voting bill, which had been passed in the House and sent to the Senate, had finally passed the latter body and been sent to Governor Gilmore for his approval. It had been in his possession nearly up to the limit of time allowed him for action, and the course which he might pursue in reference to it was awaited with deep interest on all sides, since it was generally felt that the soldier vote in the approaching presidential election might determine the outcome in the state as between the two great parties. Strong pressure had been brought to bear upon the Governor

*Joseph A. Gilmore, son of Asa and Lucy (Dodge) Gilmore, was born in Weston, Vt., June 11, 1811. His educational advantages were limited, but he was energetic and ambitious, and at an early age went to Boston where he was for some time employed in a store and then went into business for himself. In 1842 he removed to Concord, N. H., where he engaged in the wholesale grocery business, continuing till 1848 when he went into railroading. He was construction agent for the Concord and Claremont Railroad, building the line to Bradford, and was subsequently superintendent of the Concord, Manchester and Lawrence, Concord and Portsmouth, Concord and Claremont and the Contoocook Valley roads. He was an active Republican, and was elected to the State Senate in 1858 and again in 1859 when he was president of that body. He was the Republican candidate for governor in 1863, and was elected by the Legislature, there being no choice by the people. The following year he was reëlected by popular vote. He died in Concord, April 16, 1867.

both for and against his approval of the measure, not only because of opposing views as to its constitutionality, but because of its anticipated effect, and, although the Governor was himself a Republican, the Democrats, who generally opposed the measure, were not without hope that he would ultimately veto it. Finally, on Tuesday, August 24, it was whispered about that the Governor had at last acted and that a message might be expected from him in the House that afternoon, returning the bill without his approval. Indeed the majority leaders seemed to have determined upon a definite plan of action in reference to the reception of the message, and the same developed during the afternoon. Their purpose, as subsequently became apparent, was to stave off its reception by the House, until there should be no question that the five days' limit, during which the Governor may hold an act that has passed the Legislature in his possession without action, before it becomes a law without his approval, had been passed, before allowing it to come in. To this end it is at least alleged that they arranged with the secretary of state, through whom the Governor ordinarily communicates with the Legislature, that he should be conveniently absent from the state house during the afternoon.

Upon the coming in of the House at two o'clock in the afternoon of the day in question, Mr. Sinclair of Bethlehem presented a document which he stated to be a message from the Governor. The speaker declined to receive it, except by direction of the House, declaring that it was not presented through the proper medium, and directed the doorkeeper to return it to Mr. Sinclair. Mr. Sinclair then started to read the message to the House; but the speaker ruled him out of order, declaring that the reading could only proceed by vote of the House.

Mr. Bingham hereupon appealed from the speaker's ruling. He declared that the gentleman from Bethlehem had a right to make remarks as preliminary to a motion, and a right to read the document as a part of his remarks. This matter, he declared, was one of transcendent importance. Here was an attempt to trample upon the constitutional rights of the people an attempt by one branch of the government to trample upon another branch. Here was an attempt which upon its face

seemed nothing more nor less than revolution; an attempt to prevent the Governor from formally returning, in accordance with his constitutional right, a bill to the House. He appealed to every patriotic member to aid in preserving the Constitution by refusing to sustain the arbitrary action of the speaker. Once cut loose from the Constitution and where are we? he asked. Under the domination of the strongest arm, which may belong to the worst man in the country!

Mr. Sawyer of Nashua addressed the House, declaring that the bill had already become a law by limitation, the five days during which the bill might be retained having already expired.

Mr. Little of Manchester claimed that the limit had not been passed, since the bill went to the Governor on Thursday, and Sunday and Monday were not legislative days and could not be included in the reckoning.

Protracted debate ensued and the greatest disorder and confusion prevailed. Mr. Sinclair again got the floor, and went on to say that the secretary of state had absented himself, or at least could not be found, and unless some member could present the message there could be no medium of communication between the Governor and the House. He said he held a written order to the secretary of state, or deputy secretary, to present the message. It contains a statement by the Governor, said he, that he (the Governor) had sent to the House a message vetoing the soldiers voting bill, and that he understood the House refused to receive it, and requests the secretary or deputy secretary to present it. The deputy secretary declares that he has not taken the oath of office this year (he was acting as clerk of the House) and cannot present it. It is well understood that the time in which the message can be presented has nearly expired. He was not aware, he said, that any particular channel of communication was prescribed, and he declared the speaker's course as revolutionary, and designed to thwart the constitutional power of the Governor-of a coördinate branch of the government.

Mr. Bingham called the attention of the House to the constitutional provisions relating to the veto power, and contended