The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1879-05-24
. DEpIN1r1oN THAT DON'T DEFINE.

sitting around the camp IRE III 'h' '''i WI Wv
evening-Col. Hardin, Col Richardson, Geh
Shields, Col Churchill and oth"rs--and 'h'
talk ran into politics. Col. Churchill was
regular army officer, with all the supcrciiou'
bearing of his class; and he delivered himself
Of his political opinions-hc happened to be Il
whIr-with all the dOgmatlc air OF West
Point professor nstructing class. His man
ner rather than his matter was offensive, ana
Shiells-thcn Young and iiery-could contain
himsefno longer and burst out; "Col. Church
i'll, when you talk of military matters we are
all willing to defer to you as our superior, bu'
when you talk politics you make d ass OF
yourself"
The incident is brought To mind by the fire.
quent abortlyc attempts of the Ottawa R'p"J'
lran to define the position OF the democratic
party, about which its editor evidently knows
AS little as Col Churchill, in the estimation OF
Gen. Shields, knew about politics. In Thurs
days ReDu6ltcam We have the following cdi-
torial delivcrancc:
THE difference between the democrats and
republicans as presented by party leaders is
radical and yet may be expressed in few
words. The democratic doctrine is that tins
is not Il nation, but conicdcracy OF indep"nd-
ent states that while it is true that the conSti-
tuition guarantees to states and citizens certain
rights, the national government has no power
to enforce those rights but is wholly depend
ent ON the state governments Tor such enforce
mcnt and that if the state governments refuse
to do so the national government Is helpless IN
the matter, and the citizen has no remedy en-
cept to leave the state where his constitutional
rights are denied him
Wrong-all wrong The democratic doc
trne is neither that thi, is Il contederacy of
states or IA consolidation of states; neither that
the states are sovereign or that the nation is
sovereign; but that it IS II two-iold govern
mcnt in which both are sovereign in their re.
spectivc spheres and both limited in their
powers. The idea was expressed with wonder
full precision by Chief Justice Chase, in 1868,
as follows
The people of the United States constitute
one nation, under one government, and this
government within the scope of the powers
with which il is invested, is'>uprcmc On the
other hand The people Of each state compose a
state, having It's own government and endowed
with all the functions essential to separate and
existence. The states diSunitcd
might continue to exist Without the states in
union there could be no such political body as
the United States"
And in exact accord with this is the Ian
guage of Chief Justice Wait, in 1870
The people of the United states resident
within any state are subject to two govern.
state and the other national; but
there need be no conflict between the two
The power which one possesses the other does
not 1hey are established t0r dfertM p0y.I
poses and h0ce djterem j'WiSdicttoaS.''
Applying there fundamental principles to-
the question in Aand-the control OF the cleo
tons in the states where congressman and
presidential electors are involved, the demo,
Gratis, holding the jurisdiction OF the states and
of the nation to bd distinct, and that the
power which the one possesses the other does
left it to the states to define who shall be vot.i
ers, limiting the right to vote for congressman
and presidential electors to those whom theI
states make voters for representatives IN their
the appointment OF officers to conduct and SUI
pervisc such elections and make all needed ar.
engagements to maintain peace at the polls and
attend to the counting of the votes and deClar-
ing the result, the national government has no
right to surround such polls with its marshals
and supervisors and military officers and sol
dcrs with bayOncts, clothed with power
which strikes down the personal liberty of the
either and commits his very life to the dis
cretion of the worst class of partisanS, who
may make " instant arrest without process"
and in their blind fury may mann or murder
without the least danger, being made the sole
judges of the necessity, and, by convenient
perjury, may imprison innocent men, and load
them down with penalties, and deprive them
of their right to vote as they did 5000 legal
voters in New York in 1874 by imprsoning
them until after the election was over Either
the states must have exclusive power to con
duet the elections for electors and members OF
congress or the national government must
have, There can be no such thing as Il Joint
business in the matter. II is very probable, If
congress undertook to take exclusive control
of the election of congressman and presidential
electors, the states would submit without a
murmur, and it is equally probable that the
supreme court would sustain the federal gov
eminent ia such exercise of its power. In that
case however congress must conduct the cleo
ton by its own officers, on its on appointed
days, wholly independent of the states But
congrsS not having done this, and having ac-
quicsced since the foundation Of the govern
ment in the states controlling and conducting
these elections, 1t has no more right 10 serd
its own officers to supervise the officers of the
states in the performance of their functions,
than 1t mas TO scnd It's Officers 10 supervise and
direct our Legislators or circuit judges, or JUS
tees and and constableS, in the discharge OF
their functions This national Interference