The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1879-11-19
The Federal Election Lave.
A CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN
voLvING THEIR CONsTITUToEALITY.

The case of Albert Siebold ct al.
has been argued for petitioners and by
Attorney General Devens in opposition
to the petitioners, before the Supreme
Court of the United States. The
petitioners in this case, FIVE election
judges duly appinted under the laws of
Maryland, were indicted in the United
States Circuit Court for the District of
Maryland in November, 1873, on the
charge of violating the Federal election
laws while acting as such judges in the
Congressional election of November 5,
in that year. They were convicted at
the November term of the said Court
of the offences charged in the indict-
ments, and sentenced to various terms
of Imprisonment in the city Jail of Bal
timore. They now pray for writs of
habeas corpus and discharge on the
ground that the statutes under which
they were indicted, convicted, and
imprisoned are unconstitutional and
void. The following is an outline of
the argument of petitioners counsel:
The power to enact such laws as those in
question can be claimed only under article
|, section 4, of the Constitution. Congress
can exercise that power only by passing
laws to regulate the manner of holding
eti2ns fRaE l it msmnReTs .J il ths HsFf55aI
must be appropriate to the object in view
and consistent with the Constitution. From
these principles it follows:
First-That the power thus granted is an
exclusive and entire power, and must be
exercised over the whole subject of regula-
ting the manner of holding elections other
wise it will produce collision with State
regulations, and, being permanent, will
supersede them and leave a part of the
subject unprovided for.
Second-If this power is not exclusive
and entire, and may be exercised over
part of the subject, then such part as it
does regulate must be beyond the control
of the States.
Third-The power must be exercised by
appropriate and constitutional law, which
law must set forth the regulations made,
and not delegate the power of making them
to any other power or authority whatever.
Fourth-These laws must be enforced by
Federal power acting through Federal
officers, constitutionally appointed.
From the establishment of these PROPOSE
tions it follows
First-That the act of Congress is I'M
constitutional in so far as it imposes penal
ties on State officers of election for viola
ton of duty under State laws.
Second-That it is unconstitutional in so
far as it imposes on circuit courts the ap
pointment of superv isors of election.
Third-That it is unconstitutional in so
far as it requires deputy marshals to assist
and protect supervisors of election in the
discharge of their duty, and to keep order
at elections when such order consists in
part of protecting the supervisors
Fourth-That is unconstitutional in so
far as it mixes and mingles the duty of the
deputy marshals and marshals to assist
supervisors of election and to maintain
order in protecting them, with the duty of
preventing fraud at said election, for if the
last duty be valid the others are beyond
doubt void, and the mixture vitiates the
good.
If the petition is sustained short
work will be made of the federal laws
interfering with elections, at the APP
preaching session of Congress. Even the
dominant party will scarcely presume to
insist upon the enforcement of laws
pronounced unconstitutional by the
highest authority of the government.
If their constitutionality is declared, it
will then be a question of expediency
whether they shall remain on the
statute book or not, which the law
making power is entirely competent to
decide