The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1879-08-16
VERBUM SAT.

? The somewhat protracted and to our readers
+. doubtless highly edltying discussion between
, the FREE TRADER and Ottawa Republican o
! the Davenport L. 5. election law, We are hap
, by TO say is near its close, IS our esteemed co
temporary has finally been able to see the
{ point and ConcOct a direct answer, which be
f ing disposed Of leaves Us no mole TO say
Those of our intelligent readers who have been
+ able to retain The thread Of this luminous dis
cussion will remember that the FREE TRADER
objected TO the Davenport law !, on the ground
IofIts unconsututonaIty, and I'd, on the ground
OF its general viclousncss in principle and
practice.
We said the law was unconstitutional because
the constitution says the times, places ana
manner of holding the elections for congress
men SHALL he prescribed by the legislatures
of the states" and it was absurd to say con.
gress had right to pass laws which the con
stitution says the state Legislatures "shall''
pass. However, the constitution gives con
gless the power to change the state laws in
certain eXigcncies if it sees fit Our esteemed
contemporary meets the point by claiming that
this power to change INVOLVES unlimited
power on the part Of congress over the whole
subject, ignoring the inevitable logical con
lclusion that there can be no change without
the states having passed some nitatory law to
be changed But couccding, for argument
sake, the plenary power Of congress over the
subject the FREE TRADER maintained further
| that if congress passed election laws 1t must
execute them by its own election officers and
asked IN that connection the question, by what
sort Of mandate or process could the national
government compel state officers to hold con
gressional elections If the states should pro
vide for no "a, Il elections? Our esteemed CO.
ten pOrary G. .vs no answer to this question.
And lastly again admitting the pcnary power
TO add to or change the state laws adLbttuHt,
the FREE TRADER maintained that the Daven-
port law was no addition to or "change' OF
any state law, but SIMPLY protessed to provide
additional machinery to enforce state laws a
function wholly outside of and beyond the
scope OF the federal government in any case
Ourc-tccmcd contemporary admitting THIS, says,
however the Davenport law Is not intended to +
enforce state laws, but is "a law for the dctec-
ton and punishment OF Illegal voting" The |
states have passed laws defining who are voters
and lby registry laws, provision iorchallengers,
&c, provided ways for the detection and
punishment of illegal voting" The Davcn-
port law attempts no change" Of any OF those
laws, but simply and solely affects to provide
additional means to enforce them.
.. But Objectionable and indeed lnadmis-
sible as these means are on the ground OF con
stitutIonal principle they might be tolerated
were they used honestly aAd in good faith for
that sole purpose. But it is notorious they are
not so used. Experience has shown that the
supervisors and hordes Of marshals IN our
cities, instead of being used to prevent dis
honest voting, have been used solely as an
electioneerng force to prevent honest voting
except in favor of the party in power, Fairly |
and honestly executed, then, the power is too
dangerous and too great n violation of princi-
pie to be lodged with any administration; but
dishonesty and corruptly used, as it is shown
to have been from its very inception and in
deed invented for that sole object it is a power
so fraught with everything that is vicious and
damnable IN our p0litics-so destructive OF
every element of fairness and honesty in our
popular elections, that it is difficult to under
stand how any but political knave can OPP
pose its repeal.