The daily gazette., 1876-09-28
Attorney General Taffs Defence OF
His Circular.

From the n. Y. Herald.
We printed yesterday. a dispatch
from our regular correspondent at
Washington conveying the complaint
OF Attorney General Taft that the
Herald has done him injustice, and
defending his circular against the
criticisms which have been directed
against 1t. We are constrained to say
that Mr. Taft's argument and citations
fail to convince us, but we are not
sorry that he has given an occasion for
pointing out what we convince to be
his mistakes of law and faults of logic.
We are aware that his position as the
chief law adviser of the government
creates strong presumption that he is
correct and we are in error. We
ask no reader to accept our assertions.
but only to examine our proofs.
We Will first show, by evidence so
clear as to forestall contradiction, that
Attorney General Taft, in preparing
his circular, proceeded with slovenly
haste, which precipitated him into
gross and glaring inaccuracies. In the
very beginning of his circular he
asserts that elections at which mem.
bers of the House of Representatives
are chosen include by law elections at
which electors of President and Vice
President are appointed. There is
no statute which gives the least coun,
tenance to this opinion, and it is in
f1agrant repugnance to the constitution
The authors of the act giving the feder-
al government surpervision of elections
were too sound and we'll instructed as
lawyers to make any allusion to the
appointment of Presidential electors
in the bill which they prepared. They
were careful to limit it to ''an election
for Representatives ofDelegates to the
Congress of the United States" The
reason Of of this limitation lies in that
section of the constitution which de-
clares that the electors shall be ap-
pointed by each State Sin such manner
as the Legislature thereof may direct"
The federal government has not the
slightest right of interference. Any
State that chooses may appoint It's
Presidential electors b Y its Legislature,
aud this method was actually adopted
by several States at an earlieri period
and was continued by one of them
down to the time of the civil war.
Many States will choose no members
Of Congress next November, but only
Presidential electors. Vermont and
Maine have already elected their Con-
gressmen; Ohio, Indiana and several 9TH
er States will elect theirs in October;
New Hampshire choose hers in March
and Connecticut hers in April. Does At
torney General Taft really think that
the federal government has a right to
interfere with the November election in
those States when they are to choose
Presidential electors? The choice of cleo
tors stands on the same footing as the
choice of State officers and is subject to
federal interference IN no other way.
Why, then, does MIR. Taft include then.
within the scope of the statute? Such
looseness and inaccuracy show with how
little care or discrimination his circular
was prepared and justifies as in inquir-
Ing whether other parts Of it are not
equally at variance with law.
The Attorney General asserts that the
decisions of the Supreme Court last
March declaring the Enforcement law
| unconstitutional referred only to State
| elections and not to federal elections.
| Now, 1t is true that the offence charge d
in both OF those cases was committed in
connection with State election, but the
reasoning OF the Court was equally ap-
plicable to elections of every kind. Mr.
taft instructs the marshals in relation
to the peace Of the United States
which you are to preserve, and whose
violations you are to suppress" But
| the Supreme Court said:-"Certainly il
will not be claimed that the United
States have the power or are required tc
do mere police duty in the States. Ii a
State cannot protect itself against DO
mestic violence the United States may
upon the call of its Legislature OF Exc
| cutive lend their assistance for that pur.
pose. Mr.. Tf It's instruction to the
marshals to preserve the peace and pre-.
vent its violation without any call from
the State Executive or Legislature is il
open defiance of the decision Of the Su.
preme Court, which said, in another par
OF its opinion, that "the powers of inter
nal po ce are not surrendered Or restrain
ed by the constitution of the United
States" The Court recognized no ex
ception to this principle in the case o
federal elections, but applied it alike t.
all cases in which no application ha
been made by the State authorities afte
their own power to preserve or restor,
internal order had been exerted in vain
On the subject of elections the Suprem
Court was very explicit. We have de
cided that the constitution of the Unite
States has not conferred the right @
suffrage upon any one, and that tn
United States have no voters Of thei
own creation in the States "rhe righ
OF suffrage is not necessary tribute c
nationf citizenship, but exemption fror
discrimination in the exercise of tina
right, on the ground of race, &c, is.
From these principles the Court deduce
the conclusion that Federal interference
for any other purpose than the singl
one Of prev d'serin nations on az
count of race or color is plain violatio
. of the constitution. But in the Attor
hey Generals circular the instruction
are not confined to protection on tha
single point. On the contrary the
cover everything relating TO elections i
which members of Congress and Pres
dental electors are to be chosen. II
lnstructs the inarshals to Secure vote,
against whatever in general prevents {
hinders them from free exercise of til
elective franct ae.' The circular thu
strikes at the very foundation of til
: Supreme Court decision, 1t is very gi,
!. OF that decision that the United Statt
cannot interfere sin general" but onl
Tor the one specific object of preyentin
{ scriT nation on the ound of race. |