The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1879-06-04
THE SUPERVISOR LAWS IN CON
GRESS.

In rev days z most important
struggle will begin between Congress
ON the one side and the President
nominally, but the hackers of Grant
really, on the other side, over the pro-
priety and constitutionality of the sn-
pervisor laws. Before this struggle
begins everybody who wishes to form
q sound opinion as to its merits should
understand once for all that the super-
visor law only concerns elections for
members of Congress. Many people
apparently think that it covers cleo
tious for State officers aud many more
apparently fancy that it can be ap-
Piled to the choice OF Presidential
electors. Both Of these Impressions
are erroneous. Edmunds, Hoar, Gar
field, in short the eight Republicans on
the Electoral Commission, carried
state-rights to the point Of declaring
that what they called "the nation"
could not in any way interfere with
the choice of Presidential electors BY a
State, either to supervise or to guard
that choice. And yet Grant in No
vember. 1876, did, while making a
visit in Philadelphia, issue instruction
to General Sherman to order the com
handing officers in Louisiana, Florida
and South Carolina to keep watch and
ward over State returning boards and
officially to report in their capacity as
army officers any attempted misconnt-
ing of balloss. Stalwart civilians. not
outstanding this precedent which
they will be forced to accept with the
candidacy of Grant in 1880, now con-
cede that the supervisor law can only
be applied once in two years to the
election of members Of Congress, and
can be applied to no other election.
1t is important also for impartial
citizens to keep steadily ia mind that
up to 1870 there were no supervisor
laws of any otker Federal laws for
overseeing or manipulating the choice
in State of. Representatives of that
State in Congress. The Constitution,
in order to provide against the posi-
BILE failure or refusal OF a State to
choose Representatives, at all, author
lied Congress either to "alter" any
rules State might make III to "make"
new rules of its own. But the Consti.
tuition nowhere enables or authorizes
Congress to enforce .unaltered State
rules, as is endeavored to be done by
the Davenport legislation. Up to 1870
Congress had only intertered with
Congressional elections by making
new rules to regulate the day of cleo
tions, to establish the principle of the
choice by districts AMI to ortiain voting
by ballot instead Of uiua Uoce voting
Those were new rules. But till 1870
Congress never undertook tn watch,
AVERAGE aud scrutinize the enforcement
If State rules aud State Laws.
Ia an angnarded moment MFR. Da-
venpnrt WAS tempted to write d let.
ter to the Tribune describing the par
turitinn Of the supervisor laws which
the hackers Of Grant, driven by "tip
sy" Chandler and directed by "sober"
Chandler, mean to compel the weak
Mr.. Hayes into keeping by his veto Oh
tho statute book.
1t clearly appears from this letter
that the tirst law If 1870 under wh'cl,
Grant in November of that year filled
this city with troops and tried to pro-
woke a bloody conflict with our aathor.
tiles was notoriously unconstitutional
inasmuch IA it gave the appointment
Of supervisors to the "Judgs" aud not
to the "Court." And yet the very
Judge - the late Mir. Woodruff to
whom the appointment was given was
40 intensely partisan as to adjudge the
laws to be constitutional Cooler
heads insisted on a change from
"Judge" to "Court' in 1872, but this
has not bettered the business. Every
maa's good sense tells him that Judge
Blatchf0rd's court ought neither to be
called upon nor permitted to put it's
judicial finger into the pie of con.
tested election. Such work taints the |
bench and soils the judicial ermine.
The present law says that the Chief
Supervisor "shall" be appointed by the |
Court from among it's commissioners;
which was merely "cate' device of
Master Davenport, being commits
sioner, to grasp the Office for himself.