The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1879-10-29

/ lating to the same subject must be construe,
together, and when two clauses apparently
/ conflict they must he so construed, if poss
+ Bile, that both may stand in full force an
operation. The second section gives to tn
states the unquestioned power to fix tn
qualifications required for electors OF tn
most numerous branch of the Stat
/ Legislature. The second section give
to the States the unquestioned powe
+ to fix the qualification of voters, anS
+ thus to determine who shall vote at ever,
election held within its borders. And W.
must remember further that every grant o
constitutional power carries with il the i'm
I piled power To enforce ii. As Chief ustic,
Marshall said in the Mccullough case, 9Th,
power to create implies the power to pre-
serve. The power to create voters cIeasl,
belongs TO the state, and this carries witl
1t the necessary power to enforce it, and by
her own State laws and State officers secure
/ to the voter who Is pronounced by her to be-
qualified the enjoyment of the electoral
franchise on the qualifications and condi
lions which she has prescribed. But these
election laws, which it Is cOntended are mere
regulations a. 10 the manner of holding elec
tions, provide for the appointment of the
United States officials, with authority To
disregard State laws. to arrest State officers
and TO prevent citizens from voting who
have been declared qualified voters by the
State. For instance, the State OF New York
determines that a foreigner has been duly
naturallzed and that he is a qualified voter.
The United States Chief Supervisor, John
Davenport, in defiance of the laws, judicial
decisions and officers of the State decides
that he Is not qualified voter and without
warrant arrests and drags him from the polls
and locks him up in an iron cage until the
election is over.
BY THE LAW THE NATION CANNOT REGU-
LATE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS.
This is complete destruction of the pow
er OF the State To create voters. To permit
United States officials TO interfere at all at
elections is practically to set aside the Off
GERS of the State. If the State officers are
set aside, the State cannot secure to the
voter the enjoyment of the franchise she has
conferred upon him. And if the State can
not secure to the voter the enjoyment of the
franchise she has conferred, then her power
TO TX the qualification of voters becomes a
nulllty and farce. And the fourth section
OF the first article of the Constitution, inten-
ded to give to Congress merely the power to
make or alter regulations as to the manner
OF exercising the election franchise, is held
to nullify and destroy the second section of
the same article which creates and regulates
the great right Of suffrage itself Such a
construction IS not only repugnant to all
rules of common law but of common sense.
The right to regulate the manner of holding
an election is a matter of form; the right to
regulate the election itself is matter of sub
stance. To regulate the mode of exercising
the franchise is one thing; to decide who
shall be registered and to arrest citizens to
prevent them from voting is another and a
totally different thing.
In the great case of Mccullough vs. Mary
and, Chief Justice Marshall decided that
the State of Maryland could not tax branch
Of the United States Bank; that the United
states had power to create the bank, and
his implied the power to preserve it that
The power to tax the bank involved the
power to destroy it by taxation, and that
The power to destroy would defeat or rem
Ter useless the power to create The State
las the admitted right to create voters, and
his equally implies the right to protect
hem. The power in an United States Off
;er to arrest and drag voter from the polls
involves the power to destroy the elective
and the power to destroy the
elective franchise would defeat or render
Useless the power to create voters. There
ore the appointment of United States SUI
Derylsors, even as witnesses at the polls is
unconstitutional and void. None have a
light to be there in authority save the
,fficers of the State. But if we should adj
nit for argument that Congress had the
power to create officers to supervise the
manner of holding an election, this would
lot admit the authority to pass the laws
We seek to repeal The fundamental idea
# these lave 10 that tile united StaUes can
prevent fraudulent registration and voting
md keep the peace by protecting voters
With the army at the polls. The pow
r to prevent fraudulent registration or
Toting is the power to say who shall vote,
md when the United States officer is the
ole judge as to whether fraud has been
or not, it involves the power, as
have shown, to nullify that clause of the
Constitution which gives to the State the
light to create voters. And the manner in
which this law has been executed by Re
publican officials in the city of New York
shows how effectually this can be done.
Thousands of voters were intimidated from
he polls, hundreds were arrested and i'm
orisoned until the election was over, and
me citizen was arrested without warrant
simply because he advised another at the
POLLS, whose vote had been challenged, that
ne had right to vote. What John Daven-
,ort can do to one he may do to another
# he can arrest one on such frivolous pre-
exits, he can arrest fifty thousand if he
chooses, and he will if his masters and adj
Tisers will sustain him whenever it becomes
necessary to the success of his party.
His boldness is equal to his cunning, and
mpunity not only emboldens repetition but
further aggression. Ambition
5 more fierce than lust, and when tyrant
o crafty his passions could seize free
BORN maiden in the Forum of Rome under
pretended claim of seryitude, ambitious
politicians would not hesitate under these
lou 10
roting a sufficient number of voters to
change the result if a Presidential election
INVOLVING millions of patronage should turn
IN the vote of single city. They did it in
New Orleans in 1876 through their sewing
machine circulars, and they will do it in
New York or Cincinnati whenever the oc-
sasion demands it.
THE ARMY AT THE POLLS.
Let US now turn to the other fundamental
dea of these laws, the right to protect
voters and keep the peace with the army at
the polls When we examine these laws
closely and remember that they were enact
I'd at a time when, as Thad Stevens said
they were legislating outside of the Consti
tution we see clearly the tendency of the
Republican party and we understand why
they are so anxious to call our Government
"a nation" and not recognize it to be a
Union. Here we have the
distinct assertion of the power in the Uni
ted States to protect voters and keep the
peace at the polls, and it was recently
boldly asserted in the halls of Congress that
the army and navy could and should be
used for this purpose 1t is true that there
were some differences of opinion in the
Republican party on this subject Mr..
Hayes had withdrawn the troops that
Grant had stationed in Louisiana and South
and to preserve a semblance of
he attempted the impossible
task in his veto message of showing that
the use of troops to keep the peace at the
polls, under the call Of deputy marshals,
was not military interference with cleo
tons He insisted also that we presented
an immateriaI issue because he did not
intend to use the troops for any such pur
pose, and that all laws authorizing the use
of troops to interfere with elections had
been repealed. This was untrue, first,
because there never was any law directly
authorizinO the usa of fToaflS at the DOllS