The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-11-16

able craft might be chartered to Garry exour-
sionists to see the show at the moderate
charge Of Fifty cents for the round trip, the
proceeds to be devoted to the relief of the
wounded of both the French and German
armies. Should the weather prove inAuspi-
oieus on the appointed day, let the exhibition
be postponed to the first fair day. IL
grand dinner should afterward be given at
Delmonioo's to the survivors, who knows but
it might inaugurate an era of good feeling
and lead to ultimate peace between the two
great nations now at strife
THE FEDERAL ELECTION LAW AND
THE COURTS.
From the ~ p. World
We cannot pretend to any such acqualnt-
anoe with the recondite practice of Courts
as would warrant as in expressing an opinion
as to whether proceeding can yet be de-
vised for bringing the constitutionality of the
election law before the highest tribunal for
adjudication. If there had been division
of opinion between Judge Woodruff and
Judge Blatchford, the case of Quinn could
have been carried at once to the Supreme
Court, and the question set at rest. We
suppose there must be Cor rather hope there
may be) some other method of reaching
that tribunal, for it seems quite unfit that
the hasty, crude opinion delivered by Judge
Woodruff under an evident bias and with
the final exposition of 80 new and grave q
subject.
The demeanor of Judge Woodruff through
out that extraordinary trial was rather that of
partisan agent determined to carry an cleo
ton, than of q considerate impartial magis-
trate holding an even balance between the
parties before him. He did not deign to
weigh the arguments of the counsel for the
defense to which he listened with symptoms
of wifi in,
his opinion. He took no sufficient time to
examine the points presented for his judicial
consideration. The court adjourned at 6
o'clock on one day, and when it was reopened
the next morning he delivered an extempo-
Ianeous opinion with vehemence of manner
and force of gesticulstion quite out of keeping
with the weighty and circumspect eloquence
suitable to the bench. No judge could have
a subject in the brief time which
he took. He had obviously made
up his mind, and had determined to render a
party service, in advance of all argument.
He accordingly met none of the points of the
opposing counsel. He only undertook to
show that Congress has some power in regu-
lating the election of its ewr members-a
point which nobody disputed But he did
not show, nor attempt to show, that its
authority included the actual provisions of
the law which was under consideration. That
authority has, of course, some linits but he
did not attempt to draw the dividing line be-
tween permitted and prohibited regulation.
By the Constitution, Congress may alter the
regulations of the States, or make inde-
pendent regulations of its own, respecting
the time, place, and manner of holding elec-
tions for members of the House of Repre-
sentatives. This is the whole extent of its
authority. The law in question neither ap-
points nor alters the slime" or the "place;"
these grants of authority are therefore
irrelevant to the present discussion. What
may be included under the "manner" admits
of fair difference of opinion; that being an
ambiguous and pretty comprehensive word.
But however wide may be its latitude of
meaning, the Constitution evidently contem-
plates either a change of some existing State
regulation repecting the manner of election,
or the substitution of Federal regulation.
The law in dispute does neither. 1t leaves
all the State regulations untouched, changing
no part of them, substituting nothing for
them. What then does it profess to do? 1t
merely affixes new penalties to the violation
of the unaltered, undisturbed State
regulations. The pretense that increasing
penalties for violating long-standing regula-
tions is an alteration of those regulations or
a making of other regulations in their place,
is self evident absurdity. The act is there
fore void as transcending the authority of
Congress. At the very least, there is good
colorado ground for calling its constitution
ality in question, and there ought to be
some way of bringing it before a tribunal
that will give an impartial hearing to the
arguments, and render a mature and we'll
weighed decision.
Besides the unconstitutionality of it's main
pravisions, it is also unconstitutional in the
machinery provided for its execution. 1t
creates certain new officers called supervisors
of election, and makes an unconstitutional
provision for their appointment. BY the
| Constitution all officers OF the United States
must be noninated by the President and con-
| frmed by the Senate. "But Congress may,
| by law, vest the appointment of such infe-
rior officers as they may think proper in the
President alone, in the courts of law, or in
| the heads of departments. The supervisors
of election are appointed by none of these
| authorized methods. The act does not vest
their appointment in the courts, but in the
judges acting not as court, but as in
dividual commissioners of the Government.
Any lawyer who has inspected one Of Judge
| Woodruff commissions must have seen that,
by their very form, they do not purport to
have been issued by the Circuit Court, but
by the individual Judge acting merely as an
agent for the Government. He was obliged
to put them in this FORM because the law
does not authorize him to make the sp-
pointments as q court. They are therefore
all void for repugnance to the Constitution.
| We repeat our earnest wish that all the ques-
tions connected with these extraordinary and
unprecedented acts may in some way be
| brought before the Supreme Court of the
| United States, where they would be con-
| sideTed with delibsration beittinQ the Judi