The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1839-05-04
From The Richmond Wliy
THE INTERFERENCE OF FEDERAL
OFFICERS IN ELECTIONS,

sr'S''s''''
THE INTERFERENCE OF FEDERAL
OFFICERS IN ELEC rION,.
To Dr. .,oha Brocksnbroagh, Chairman ami Jlir,
Peer =. DANIEL, John Raihe,Joord, lhomas Ri,lr
Wiiiiam Seiden. N. Denly, Charies Ellis. b
Bigger. ard James Boshev, members of he Demo.
cratic Cenrat Commihee.
Geptlemru-I have hitherto addressed my remark,
exclusively your Chairman but the mex, proposition
or rather, charge against the Wing parry your al.
dress. 10 which shall advert, monstfous u
founded and unjustihable, that think il nothing more
than lair that you should all divide The Iespnnsbl,
presume that maturity Of you. al least, sanctioned H.
and among that n,sjorty may includ. him Who !.
now u candidate for Congress in this District
proper that he especially should be held TO answers,
the bar Of public opinion, alnde to that portion Of
your address ia which you charge the Wing panty Nth
having lately attempted fhe sp,r 81 The Sd
fion aef, aud timif ihc right Of ss6,aee enienan
good opinion Of VI. private worth omany OF
TO suppose that this accusation could have been de-
iiheraiey sanctioned by ALL aud therefore hope that
you who innocent will disclairn H. ], is understood
that the act supposed act Of the Wing par. ~hch
has drawn from you this hbeous denuncla'on was The
bill introduced nt, the United States SeLse by Nj
Crttenden prevent the interference Of certain ede
raj officers in elections. The singular otquny OF m'od
which could lead YOU TO perceive the slghest re'em.
blance between Mr.. Criitenden's bill aud tie famous
Scdnon Of 9S, does. confess. entirely exceed my
comprehension: but, when YOU also declare that NJ
Crtlenden's bill was designed to Emt the righ n ST.
Jrage am utterly COMPOUNDED at your profound iInj-
Of the subject upon which you write, or what
would he much worst If It true, your bod attempt
To mslead the people. Mr. Cnttenden's bull. 81 ot
from limiting, expressly secures and projects the hi
Of suffrage Federal office holders and really. gen.
tenen. that you shosd have looked into ,be
provisions Of The bill which sou thus fcrcsy
noucing. argues hut little in favor Of YOUR powers aud
cspa cities as Central Committee OF V,eilanre
Bu, how and IN what respect does Mr.. Ciiitcndens
hill resemble the ST d,ltn law The latter passed.
during the administration Of the elder Adams aud was
rxpn, SLY designed 10 shield the Government add
,ticrr. trn aninatversions Of the press aud hnm
The free Examination Of abuses i,y The ~, cple Mf
Crit,enden's hill WAS directly the reverse lis ofcl
was TO project the people aud preserve The fIe drmh
elections from the dangerous influence and interference
OF lie Go,ernp.eit aud MS Ulcers. But. sir, his pal
pable distinction, which seems 10 have escaped ,or
perverted vrion. he better expr ihan the
lsngusge Of Mr. Rves, Ia his truly cloqu
man Ike speech On Mr.. Crr, deus hi. or rattr
upon The report If General Wall fhrmerly hghlm,d
F.deralist. hat Il, I'd IN the wool Of Deuoc acy
made flaming report against the bill in Which he
tended that vas not only the right but The dor, d
Federal officers TO interfere Ia tl,ciions provided hst
interference the side Of the administration ard
this Report, Which Of the most luph ha dcl
aud Infamous documents ever presented Conpus.,
was sacrlegoilsiy compared 10 M ldisons Rrpnr AID
Resolutions Of % ard 90 upon the Alien and S,don
Laws. :" The object AMI entire drift Of the R,rou d
the Virginia Report aud Resolutions" saws Mr. RNes
were 10 assert the rights Of The people against the
Gorerament The whole scoie Of the Report Of tie
Judiciary Committee (Mr. Walrs) is to ma,uraru the
alleged rights Of the officers Of The Gorernms"i
against the p,opic. The Virginia Report and R"sol
tons ASSERT the rpht If The peorte freely discuss
and examine The merits Of public men and measures
the means of suhjecting the Government it. Ju 70.
sponsh,lty to the ptop'e This Report contend. o
the right Of the o6esrs Of The Government 10 interfere
plp pr,.. a, a. Ea
inevitably subjected to the undue influence Of the Go'
rcrHmeaf."
But aoain-there is another distinction clearly en-.
forced by MIR Rses, which completely annh'lates the
sophisical and ridiculous idea Of resemblance bcw,eh
the sedton act, and Criltenden's bill. The formG
punished r0rds whether written spoken against the
ruling powers. The latter was designed not TO punish
words but dcis-he 0f interference by the rrau,d
Cohorts Of Executive power, inencd 10 control he free
exercise Of popular suffrage, But The Report , a.,
argues Mr. Rwes, F" that this cannot be done w,h,D
abdging the freedom Of speech and Of The press Nh"
does this argument smoont tot That yon can rcs'rrn
no act however Dangerous TO the peace, morals Of Dncr
~ oil the country OF which words spoken may
happen to be the vehicle instrument because IN re-
srdihing the act you may incidentally put strant
on TIE medium Or INSTRUMENT through which me act IS
done. For example: we have Just raised law pro-
hbiting the giving Of challenge within this District 10
hight duel; no~ challenge can be given only through
The medium o words spoken and NAV be gwen
thr nigh ds spoken well as through words written
u follows then we have no constitutional power 10 pass
the law We have done for prohibiting challenges within
tins District to fight a duel, because IN dong 50 We
ahrdge the freedom Of speech In like manner hrhe.
ry aid corruption perDerated through the medium
Of words spoken written. No Law then be passed
prohibiting bribery and corruption. because IN dong 50
you sbrJge the freedom of speech. will PIT sIi
another case Could Congress declare that i sry
officer Of one Of its courts Judge, United States Al.
torney, MarshaI-shond improperly tampsr WIN
jury Influence their verdict in csnse, civil or cfnnt
nal. depending before them, the officer guilty Of suh
offence should forfeit his office And vet such r@'
pcfiag would I've through the medium Of words and
might he said that ~ prohibiting IL. yon were ahrdare
the freedom Of speech These suggest al once ne
Distinction between the sedion law. the " "a" head
,uc bloody boucs'' Of which have been nourl>hed 80
before eyes, ard such lcG,s'"n 70
restrain The improper interference Of 7, deral "if''
holders with The free electoral rights Of The people" a.
nave supposed, might he found be within The l'n'
u constitutional powers. lu the case ~ the ScdIb"
Law. It the false, scSndsons and malicious va
mig as described in The law. the w"rds h'nSd',''
which the direct and immediate object OF l'gl''
iet (he ehaho.cj.g. the b,,ge,y, the t"mp'''"p' W
improper micrftr,no.) which Is sought 10 he fe%""'''
md The words but the mere nchdcm or ca'"d' ."
compartment"
Aud n.,w gentlemen Of The Cornni,tee. can nero
W more conclusive ftsitop of the absurd aud fe.y
Federai doctrines OF Mr. Walls report, than IS i.f.
lished in the foregoing quotations Bot suppose ~