Wilmington daily commercial., 1873-01-30

shall not be tidzeedE
1t will thub BE- SEED Ahat the form OF ex~I
ssessasn whichcohtains the grant of the right
zAIvdzAIto the dlakens & not at all uniisuai y
rEe arSument for the defence rs thss,
as there is no express grant of Iaght
but a prohibition of denial or sabridg
ment of the right.bysthe general or State Gov
eminent, Congress is limited In Its exercise |
of legislative powers TO those cases where
there Ihss been; such denial or abridgment /
and al there has been In the State of Della
ware none such, the Act of Congress as re-
CARDS this case Is Ultra PIres, is without |
Constitutional authority.
New admitting for the sake of argument, |
(Which otherwise / deny In totol that the
legislation OF Congress to carry INTO effect |
the 18th article must be confined to eases of |
abridgment or denial Of the right 20 vote by |
thei United States, OF the several States, 1t |
must be conceded that any practical denial or |
abridgment existing at the present OF appre- |
hended in the future, can be made the sub |
ject matter of legislation, 30 as to guard
against and defeat obstacles and hinderances
In this form.
If by indifference, refusal to pass such
laws as harmonic with and aid In making
available and secure TO all citizms tlie right
to vote, aad by neglecting to punish the Off
GERS of It's own State for violation df their
duty in affording TO the citizens theIpre-re-
quisites to voting, practical denial and
abridgement of that right is effected, Congress,
In my Judgment, has full power under the
f5ff sHhendinent TO remove this kyil, and TO
select such means as 1t may deem appropriate
legislation.
|. Nor isit neeesssrytliat there should be di-
rect and hostile legislation by the General Gov
eminent or the several States. Suppbse the
qualifying process can be performed By none
but officers acting under State authority, and
there is no law, OF disposition In State officials
to punish the individual who by his own will
full act disfranchises citizens of the United
States, is not the practical denial and @bridg-
ment as complete and as destructive pf the
purpose the 18th article was intended To ac.
complish, as # there was active hostile legis-
lation 2
= Whether, therefore, the scope Of Legislative
action is extended, under the 18th Article, to
all appropriate Legislation, for the purHose OF
making available and secure the right 10 vote
granted by the Article, or is confined tp such
legislation as will prevent a practical denial
or d6rtdgment thereof by the United States,
or the several States, we think this I'd section
of the Act In question, on which the indict-
ment is framed, is based on ample cobsttu-
tional authority, and that therefore thb first
reason fled for arrest of judgment Nd ust be-
| overruled. 'i
End. "For that the provisions of tile said
Statute are not applicable to the dutibs I'm
posed by the laws Of Delaware upon the said
defendant, as charged in the said ihdict-
ment."
We suppose it is meant to be asserted by
this 2nd reason filed, that the collector of
| taxes was not intended to be embraced in the
| class or description of persons named In the
Act as charged with the performances" of
certain duties, &c. TT - r- y,
We fail to see any ground for such con-
| clusion. When we examine the provisions OF
the Constitution of Delaware and of itb sta
tutes, imposing duties on the collectof, the
/ performance of which are prerequisites to
the citizen becoming qualified to vote, We
tcHnot see'how any person or officer could be
more clearly and certainly embraced within
the class or description of persons named in
the Act of Congress, than the Collector OF
Taxes, the defendant in this Indictment. i
do not consider that this will bear an argu-
ment the 2nd reason is therefore overfuled.
l. The 8nfand last reason filed is in these
words, viz: "For that the said defendant being
an officer of the State of Delaware with no
powers or duties but such aswere prescribed
by tie constitution and laws of the said
State, is answerable only to said eoHstitu-
ton and laws for any performance there
u nnder.n - ~ tt- i
This objection, stated in different man
ner, is in substance this "That the National
Government has no power to require or COM
mand State officer to perform an act, which
act is also required of him by State authbrity,
!, and consequently has no power to puni4h for
the non-performance of the act, me
The performance, it is said, is bleach
of duty to the authority under which the
! officer was appointed, and. for that bleach
of duty, he can be punished by no ppwer
save that under which he was appointed
II If the duty of the collector as qualifying
officer, was a duty which he owed std the
State alone, and his act violated no law but
e that Of the State under whose authority he
8 acted, it may be conceded that there Iould
be no warrant for the United States punish
ing, by fine and Imprisonment, such pfrsoI
: under such circumstances.
: Congress in legislating on this subject
: found that the ability Of the citizen Of th'
f United States to vote, depended on certain
e acts which could. only be performed yCer.
: tain persons holding Office or authority unde
| State governments, and unless there Was
i concurrence of the will of these officers with
j. the action of the citizen, in qualifyingyhim
r self TO vote theright OF voting wenld bf ut
d terly destroyed, And supposing such q non
> concurrence land that II Itiet no punishfnen
Il In the several states-unless Congress exerci
III nsu q NhiCSt hulhOiAty OFClf uiAd pAAAShOH VI
n men who refused to perform their part il
l. qualifying citizens TO yata, -~ths 18th Amend
1t ment would amount TO nothing as q, gudran
y tee OF security of right. /"
g. The statute of the United States, them III
r der which this indictment was drawn nc
II only made q rule of action, superaddel +
10 that Whioh was alereated by the State, but ere
l. ated penalty not for violating D State Law
le for thRt II could not punish, buf fot yiolatin
ID United States law, or law protecting tn
a. constitutional rights of citizens of the Unite
le The fact of duty to State authority did NJ
absolve the State official from duty to In
IL ted States. .al1thOSity. The laW-making p9wt
rd took these individuals 9yssta 1t found them
l. invested with ability 70 Aeaxfy into effect Il
tn 10th Article, or to fender Il nugatGry, an
w imposed duty, by way of punishment fl
ly the non performance ~iiMpartially md fairl
as of what was already required of them t
,e- State authority; they created no new dhtl
added no new act to be performed, made 4
.u- new scheme, plan, or policy, different
is other from, that already required of Il
tu- State officer, but only commanded him,
&C. his action was vital to the exercise of right
he the American citizen. TO do impartially al
all lfairly his duty! !, .,...4.l4uy..sf.4..
Of But 1t is alleged, Congress cannot impose
ay duty on a State officer to execute q Unit
I'd. States law, and as it cannot impose such
nal duty, 1t cannot punish for violation therec
lar The fallacv Of this arOumant Hea in nof dTa1