American citizen. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1864-1890, 1879-11-22
Deputy.MarSha1 Laws in Court.

Baltimore cases and one Cincinnati
case, it was anticipated the discussion
of the Constitutionality of the Federal
statutes known rs the Deputy Marshal
laws might arise before the Supreme
Court and reach decision in that tri-
bunal. 1t is of the highest importance
that the Supreme Court pronounce
upon the Constitutionality of these laws
at an early day, and since the heat of
the late election is over this grave
question can, or should, be impartially
and candidly discussed. 1t is the ques-
ton of foremost Importance. These
laws are applicable to all cities of TWEEN
ty thousand inhabitants. and they num-
Der not far from eighty. The next
census will show larger number than
that. These cities will elect, or control
the election, of about one hundred
members of Congress, One-third OF the
House of Representatives. 1t is i'm
portant to know whether the election
of so large fraction of the members of
the House is to be placed entirely in
the hands of agents selected by the
Executive Department of the Federal
Government, or whether these elections
shall be conducted by the people of the
States, as they have been till recently,
since the adoption of the Constitution.
Those laws give to the party in control
of the Executive unlimited authority to
hire men at fifty dollars head to vote
and work for said party. This is hide
ously inequitable. Is it Constitutional?
The Acknowledgement of the United
States has made known his brief upon
the validity of these Deputy-Marshal
Election laws, and alleges their consti-
tutionality-
81. Because Congress has full and unquali-
fled power to regulate the manner of holding
elections for members thereof.
- Because the power of Congress to regII-
late the manner of holding elections for its
measures may be deemed necessary or expedi-
ent to conducting such elections and deter
mining the result thereof.
''3 Because Congress can punish any VIOLA
ton of the laws enacted under this power, and
also any interference with the officers charged
with the execution of such laws.
~. Because the statutory provisions under
which the convictions were had are appropri-
ate for carrying INTO effect the power granted
to Congress to regulate the manner of holding
elections for Representatives"
OF these, the first and second are the
essential claims of the Executive De-
partment of the Government in defense
of the power of the Executive Depart
ment of the Government, under the
Constitution, to stalk into the various
States and conduct elections. Should
the Supreme Court affirm these propo-
sitions, it would be in opposition to the
historic and recorded opinions of that
high tribunal, and in view of the in
terpretations placed upon the Constitu-
ton by that Court in the past, we are
not presumptuous in saying that these
assertions Of the Attorney General are
in direct conflict with the Constitution.
The clause of the Constitution upon
81, 4 =,
validity of these statutes (Article l,
Sect. ~ is as follows:
1.-THE times, places and manner of holding
elections for Senators and Representatives
shall be prescribed in each State by the Leg
islature thereof; but the Congress may at any
except as to the places of choosing Senator's.
When these laws were passed they
were not grounded at all upon the claim
of the Constitution. They were deemed
a part of Southern legislation, and were
doubtless supposed to be, somehow,
acts enforcing the late Amendments to
the Constitution. But perhaps this
doesn't matter.
1t is clear that even if Congress has
full and unqualified power to regulate
the manner of holding elections for
members thereof" it does not follow
that Congress has full and unqualified
power to hold these elections itself, or
through its agents. The elections must
be held by the proper parties to hold
elections-the voters created by the
State. Because Congress may alter or
make regulations as to the manner OF
holding elections for Senators and Rep
Iresentatlves, 1t by no means FOL
lows, as Mr. DeVens asserts, thaI
congress can walk INTO the states
ana 1tSeH cohducG such eleGIlohs
ana determine tne result mere
OF. What IL aoes Dy us aSehts
1t does Itself: Because Con-
gress may. prescribe the manner IN
which thing snail De Gone by those
colnpeIeiit W eo 'n r. t th 0oH ;laIs
My G III J,ao =, az aJn,;ra.ia noooh
VI va. a.. il',o' ~ Gu -" tPot e
III 'lie ui GH W o.aolo pm. .n''o II
INC "l nl s .l, IN IS ~,
u ~ VI 'io onoo.son ~ "a i:eas.; 'i 20
iiouse' ue.o iiiin r 'iio 4u,iiii0t',,oi' VI
voters put us olhcers at the P0lis 10 en-
Slneer the SURFACES, IL can also pace
theh IN the Legislative NAILS oi Inc
states 10 pronounce upon the crGoe.-
tiais oi ihelipers' ruie ou' anu RUE III
votes 1or united states SENATOR'S anu
arrest members WITHOUT warrant. Inc
uenelal GoEeI M9 S nas 'hS sanne
power S eieo' oIaot o.aIe oe af ths
tnaI IL mas 10 eiecI lnehipers VI llle
Rouse anu mas Inc same power over
the eiectiohs III eltner case. All thls Is
an enormous stretch OF Ihe meaning Oh
the "oru manner ana SUI, more
enormous stretch OF aiieSea fedeTal
power over Suffrage. why qua not the
CONSTITUTION say exphcltly' II IL meant
that, that congress snail nave power TO