The Portland daily press., 1872-06-14
The Federal Election Law.

How the Democratic members of the House
of Representatives dared, as matter of poll
cy, to say nothing of principle, to go before
the country as opponents of the federal cleo
ton law as finally amended and passed, is a
mystery. Let this thing be fairly understood,
especially as it has been much misrepresented.
More than a year ago, it having often been
proclaimed especially in the New York Irib-
atne that the elections in large cities are car
ried by force and fraud, Congress passed an
act providing for the appointment of two SUI
.pervisors of elections, belonging to different
political parties, by the Circuit Court of the
United States, on application of two citizens.
BY the law of Feb. 2Sth, 1871, these super
visors were clothed with considerable power,
but the act Just passed as an amendment to
an appropriation bill completely emasculates
the original statute. Ten citizens instead of
two must apply for the appointment of super
visors, and the latter when appointed
have absolutely no powers except to overlook
the election and see achat is done. They are
mere official witnesses for the government in
case frauds are committed. They cannot by
any possibility do any harm; in case any
wrong is done they mag be the means of
bringing the offenders to justice.
1t is not claimed by anybody, as we under
stand it, that even the original law operated
in such way as to interfere with the rights
or liberties of any American citizen. Its only
effect was to deter men from the commission
of crimes that render the most cherished
rights of the people mere idle boast. 1t is
not claimed that the law was ever used for
partizan purposes. Indeed it is difficult to
see how it could be so used. The supervis-
ors are required to be of different political
parties, and the appointing power is as indie
pendent of executive control as if they were
inhabitants of another country. 1t will not
do to assume that mere gratitude for their
appointment makes the United States Judic-
larry servile tool of the President, for the
facts are VIGOROUSLY otherwise. Under this
law fair election might be held even in New
York and Brooklyn, whose fraudulent vote,
according to the Tribune, gave that State to
Seymour and Blair in 1868. But the deter
mined opposition of the Democracy together
with Republican timidity operated to cut this
benefcent statute down to mere skeleton
during the session of Congress that has just
closed. And even then the Democrats voted
against it! Such conduct has the merit of
consistency, at least. The Democratic preju-
dice against registration laws has always been
as invincible as that against liquor laws
There is not State in the Union whose reg
istration laws they have not repealed or mod
flied so as to render imperative, whenever
they have had an opportunity. Why then
should they be expected to look with favor
on personal supervision having for its pur-
pose the detection of fraud? Horace Greeley,
who has so often denounced this Democratic
reluctance to endure fair vote, is now to re-
ceive the benefit of New York and Brooklyn
frauds. and both he and his organ are omi-
nously silent. For ''reform'' party and
reform" leaders this is not we'll