The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-10-25
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
THE MARYLAND ELECTION CAsEs-ARGUMENT
AGAINST THE CoNsTIrUTIoNALITY OF THE
FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS


FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS.
WASHINGTON. Oct. "a, 1879.
The following was among the business transacted
in the United States Supreme Court to-day
NO. 7. Originals; parte Albert Siebold ct al.
petitioners.-Argued by Bradley T. johnson for
petitioners and by Attorney General Devens in oppo-
The petitioners in this case, Ave election judges
duly appointed under the law OF Maryland, were IN
dicted IN the United States Circuit Court for tho
charge of violating the federal election laws while
acting such judges in tho Congressional election
of s ss S.
Court, convicted of the offences charged in
the indictments and sentenced to various
terms of Imprisonment In the City Jail of Balti-
more. They now pray this Court writs of habeas
corpus and discharge, upon the ground that the
and imprisoned sections 2.Ol2 2.OI6, 2,Ol7, 5,5I4
g. SIS and 500 Revised Satutes unco sttutioua
and void The case is analogous in many respects to
that of Augustus f. Clarke petitioner reported yes
terday. The following an outline OF the argument
of petitioners COUNSEL
The power to such laws as those in question
lie claimed only under article l. section Of the
constitution. Congress exercise that power
only by passing laws to regulate the manner OF hold
ing elections for its members In the several States
The laws making such regulations must be appro-
pirate the object in view and consistent with the
constitution. From these principles 1t follows:-
Ftrst-That the power thus granted il exclusive
and entire power, and must be exercised over tho
whole subject of regulating the manner Of holding
elections; otherwise 1t viii produce collision with
State regulations, and, being paramount will super
sede them and leave a part Of the subject unpro-
vided for.
Second II this power Is not exclusive and entire,
and may be exercised part of the subject, then
such part as 1t does regulate must be beyond the
control OF the States.
7hird-The power must be exercised by appropri-
ate and constitutional law, which law forth
the regulations made and not delegate the power
making them to any other power authority what
Fytirkt--Theso laws must be enforced by federal
power. acting through federal officers constitution
ally appointed.
From the establishment Of these propositions it
follows:-
l. That the act OF Congress is unconstitutional in
so far rs 1t imposes penalties State officers Of
election for violation OF duty under State laws.
2. That IL IN unconstitutional in tar as IL i'm
poses circuit courts the appointment Of supervi
sors OF election.
3. That 1t is unconstitutional in so far as IL re-
quircs deputy marshals to assist and protect SUPER
of election In the discharge of their duty and
to keep order at elections, when such order consists
In part OF protecting the supervisors.
4. That Ii Is unconstitutional in 80 far as IL mixes
and minglcs 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 IL the last
duty be valid the others beyond doubt void and
the mixture vitiates the good.
On the ground OF the unconstitutonality OF the
Federal Election law thus shown, counsel claims
that petitioners should be released.
The argument of the Attorney General in opposi-
ton to the present petitions is substantially ent
cal with that against the petition of Augustus f.
Clarke in tho analogous case yesterday. the pcints
Of which have been given.