Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1879-10-18


issue between the two parties now
arrayed in conflict sooner or later
resolves itself into this che aEterna-
tive: Shall political party once in
Possession Of the Federal executive
Offices have the power Of perpetual
ing its tenure Of Office by controlling +
the elections? All other issues, the I
financial issue, the Southern ques- /
ton and such ,areside issues adapted I
to particular localities, but the cleo
ton laws are practically the bone
which Is fought for under all these
pretexts, and will be till the next
President Is elected. After that the
question will be dead. If the Re
publican party elects a President,
and regains its predominance in
Congress, the Federal Executive
will have obtained indefeasible con-
trOI of elections and with it the
means of perpetuating its own pos
session Of power. If the Democratic
party becomes predominant, then
these election laws will have been
finally swept away, and the control
Of elections relegated to the States
whose constitutional right il Is to
control them. 4 suecinet history
OF these laws therefore will be an
appropriate basis for the controversy
we have undertaken on the part OF
the Democratic party
The laws relating to the super
vision Of elections, about which 50
much debate has been held lately,
were passed in Congress in 1871,
when all mems attention was turned
to the approaching Presidential
election Of 1872. New York State
had already stringent laws for the
prevention Of election abuses (as
will be presently seem; nevertheless,
these laws were intended specially
for use in that State and city. The
pretext for them urged in Congress
siOnaI debates was that they were
needed to prevent the intimidation
of negro voters in the South, but,
forall that, theywere not intended for
the Soath, have never been worked
in the South, and have never been
applied to any purpose but the sup
preston of large number of Demo-
cratic votes in New York and other
large Northern cities. They are
copied from the laws which previ-
Ously existed in New York, but
with important differences. To
make the whole matter clear we
give the New York election law, as
it stood before the enactment OF the
Davenport laws, and a. itstill stands
on the Statute Book Of the State:
All inspectors Of election and poIl-elerks
in the city and county of New York shall
hereafter be selected and appointed by the
Board OF Police. VINO shall also have power
to make all the necessary removals and
transfers and MI all vacancies which may
from any cause arise It shall be the duty
Of the said Board OF Police in the months Of
August and September in the year lo92, and
annually in the months OF August ana sep
tember in each succeeding year. Tor etcn
election district in said city and couAtyy 70
select to serve rs inspectors of election four
persons, two OF whom on state issues snail
BE- Of different political faith and opinions
from their associates and those appointed 70
represent the party In political minority
ON state issues in the said city and county
ITO be named solely by such Commissioner
or such Of the missioners of Police in
said Board As are the representative OF such
political minority, who SHAH De clIILens OF
the United states and Of the state OF New
York, OF good character and able 10 read
write and speak the English language I'M
flarzransEInaIV- uUHIIfle1 voters IN sad city
and county and not candidates for any
ONCE TO be voted for by the electors of the
district for which they shall be selected but
no person shall be required 70 be resident
or voter in the election district foe which he
shall be appointed an Inspector
We will now state the principal
points in which the Federal law OF
1871 differs from the above State
law.
The most important is that while
the State law places the appoint
ment of its inspectors of elections in
the hands of the State Commission
ers of Police, and Of course makes
them distinctly State officers, the
Federal law places the appointment
of its analogous officers, entitled
supervisors of elections, in the
hands of the Federal Court of that
city nominally, but practically in
that of its clerk, John Davenport.
Judge Blatchford, the chief officer OF
this court, is VIGOROUSLY a Republi-
can partisan, as almost all the Fed
eraI Judges are throughout the
United States.
The state law provides several
precautions against partiality of a
partisan character, and especially
that the inspectors "shaU not be
candidates for any Office to be voted
for by the electors Of the district fol
which they shall be selected" The
Federal law omits any such pro
vision.
But the most important difference
is that the Federal law contains {
clause for which there is no prOtO
type in the State law, to the effect
that the supervisors of elections Of
any of the assistant supervisors Oh
deputy marshals appointed by then
shall have power to arrest without
process and confine in prison til
after the election anyone whom
they or any one of them may sus
pect of an intention Of violating the
election laws of the State or the
Federal Government. 1t was by
virtue of this clause that Mr.. Super
visor Davenport arrested over foul
thousand Democratic voters just be
fore the last election and so pre-
vented them from voting, on the
pretense that their registration pa
pers were not regularly made out
and that voting on them would be
ii violation of the law. All these
four thousand voters were thus pre-
vented from voting at that election
though, very soon after, the Su
preme Court decided that there wa;
no vestige Of reason for disputine
tba validity Of the T9DprS