Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1839-04-11
POLITICAL.
r E NJ A r X s
MR.. CALHOUN, OF S. CAROLINA,

Federal CNcers IN elections.
Mr.. Calhoun said: belong, Mr.. Presi-
dent, to that political school which re-
CARDS with jealous eye the patronage Of
this Government, and believes that The
less its patronage The better. consistently
with the objects for which the Govern
menl was instituted. Thus thinking. l
have made no political move of any i'm
portance, for The last twelve or thirteen
years, which had not for lis object, direct
Iy or indirectly, the reduction of patron
age. But, wiIhsanding this, ! cannot
bring my mind to support this bill, deci-
dedy as approve Of its object. Among
other difficulties, there is a constitutional
objection, which cannot surmount, aud
which | shall, without further remark,
proceed 10 state and consider.
This bill proposes 10 inllici the penalty
of dismission on large class of The Off
GERS of this Government, who shall elec-
toneer, or attempt to control, or influence
the election of public functionarieS either
of The General or Stale Governments,
without distinguishing between their Off
cial and individual character, as citizens;
and the question is, has Congress the con-
stitutional right to pass such law! That's
again, involves prior, and still more gen.
eral questions: has this Government the
authority 10 interfere with the electoral
rights Of the citizens of The States!
In considering This general question, |
shall assume, in the FIRST place, what none
will deny, that it belongs to the States sep
arately to determine who shall, and who
shall moi, exercise the right of suffrage;
and. in the second, that it belongs 10 them,
in like manner, to regulate that right; that
is, 10 pass all laws that may be necessary
TO secure its free exercise, OIL The one
hand, aud 10 prevent its abuse on the 9TH
er. l next advance The proposition,
which no Que 10 the leas, conversant with
our institutions. or familiar with the con-
stilulion, will venture 10 question, that as
far as citizens are concerned, this right be-
longs solely to the States, TO Tie entire er-
cfusion Of the General Government, which
can in no wise Touch or interfere with it,
viii hout transcending the limits ofIhe con-
sitution. Thus far there can be no differ
ence Of opinion.
But citizen may be also all officer OF
this Government, which brings up the
question, has it The right TO make it penal
for him 10 use his official power to control
or influence elections! Can't, for instance,
make it penal in collector, or other OIL
Ger, who holds bond, in his official
character, on a citizen, 10 threaten to en-
force it, if he should refuse 10 vote for his
favoritc candidate? regard this PROPOSE
ton as moi less clear Than the preceding.
Whenever the Government invests an iu-
dividual with power, which may be used
10 the injury of Others, or the public, ii is
manifest thai it not only has The right, hut
that it is in duty bound to preventils abuse,
as far as practicable. But il must he borne
in mind that citizen does not cease to
be one in becoming Federal officer.
The Government must, accordingly, take
special care, in subjecting him to penal
ties, for the abuse Of his official powers,
that it does not interfere in any wise with
his private rights as citizen, and which
are, as has been stated, under the excIu-
sive control of the States. But no such
care is taken either in this bill or the sub
stitute proposed by its author. Neither
make any distinction whatever between
The official and privute acts ofthe officer as
citizea. The broadest and most compre-
hensive terms are used, comprehending
and subjec,ing all acts without discrimna-
ton as 10 character, 10 The proposed pen
atty. Undcr its provisions. if an officer
should express an opinion Of any candid
ate, say of President, who was a candid
ate for reelection, whether favorable or
unfavorable, or 10 whisper an opinion re-
ating to his administration, whether good
or had, he would subject himself to the
penalty of'his bill, as certainly as if he
had brought the whole of his official pow
er to hear directly on The freedom of cleo
iion. That bill, containing such broad IL
indiscriminate provisions, transcends the
powers Of Congress, and violates in the
officer the electoral rights Of The citizen,
held under the authority of bis State, and
guaranteed by the provision of The consli-
tuition, which secures the freedom of speech
TO all, is TOO clear, after what has been
said, 10 require additional illustration. 1t
cannot pass without the enlarging the pow
er Of the Government by the abridgenent
of the rights ofthe citizen.
But, it may be replied, that these are
instances where the Government has sub
jected its officers 10 penalties for acls of |
private character, over which the constitu-
tim has gwen it no control. Such un
doubtedly is the fact, and its right TO do
so, in the cases referred to in the discus
sion, cannot be denied; but all such cases
are distinguished from that under consid-
Grafton by lines too broad to be mistaken.
In all of.them. the acts prohibited were in
The first place, such as were incompatible
with the official duties enjoined; as in The
case of the prohibition Of commissaries to
purchase or deal in articles similar to those
l. l. :. 4