The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1879-07-19
THAT DAVENPORT LAW AGAIN


. statements, but there is little satisfaction IN
while he so persis,ently falsifies and perverts
For instance, the FREE TRADER sand lit know
Of no rnationall election at which the quail
fed voters of the states cast their ballots TIT
TYPE iiend," in setting up our article, omitted
the word national" and though the contex
left our meaning perfectly obvious, our est
cotemp takes advantage of the Typographical
error and makes q handle of it, Again, The
FREE TRADER supposed such contingency
as that the states might fail TO make pro
vision for the election OF congressman. Gun
est cotemp. puts 1t in this language: "Iht
| FREE TRADER intImates that the states neeo
not submit TO the election laws of congress
that they may prefer to let the elections go ny
ldefnult-a sort Of secession that gives consola
ton to the democratic heart" This is mean
perverson of our meaning certainly and
amounts to something very strongly resem
bling ale But let it pass
After floundcring through column OF
more in vain effort to controvert our position
that in the whole history of federal legislation
| in this country there is no such thing known
as "Dational" election, our est. cotemp. virtu'
ally yields the point and cries, "Well, we don't
care what such elections may be called, the
real question is, has congress, under the constl-
tuition, authority to make rules and regula,
tions and to supervise elections at which presl-
dental electors and members of congress are
chosen" Beg your pardon; such is not the
real question" at issue or which the FREE
TRADER started out to discuss with you. 1t
admitted in the start that the contingency
mIpht arise in which it would become neces-
sary for congress, as a matter of selfpreserva-
ton, to take charge OF the elections IN the
states of members of congress and presidential
electors. Story on the constitution says the
clause of the 4th sec of the first article Of the
constitution giving congress power to regulate
the time, place and manner of holding cleo
.tiOus Of congressman was inserted 10 meet just
such "a contingency, and exactly such Il con
tngcncy is cited by HIM as having arisen at
the time the provision was under discussion in
the case of Rhode Island, which had with,
drawn It's senators and representatives from
congress The authority of congress, then, is
not the question, but the question is, Has con
gress exercised the authority entrusted to it
for exercise IN an extreme case as Story says
in the adoption Of the Johnny Davenport laws?
We contend that those laws neither touch
the time, place or manner Of holding the cleo
tons, or are in any sense an exercise of the
power which the constitution has reserved to
congress for exercise in certain extreme case,
of which Rhode Island is cited in Eliot's de-
bates as an example, to take the management
of the congressional elections out of the hands
of the states and conduct them by its own Off
GERS. The elections are still conducted in
strict accordance with state laws. The states
define who shall vote, yhow the votes shall be
cast, appoint the officers TO take charge Of and
count the ballots and declare the result, and
state officers certify to congress who has been
elected The Davenport laws In no respect
change or qualify these regulations. What they
do is, under the plea Of keeping the peace at
the polls and preventing fraudulent voting, to
surround the polls with a horde of supervisors
and marshals to elbow aside the state police
placed around the polls for the same purpose
and arrest whomsoever they please, and tie
prive of the right to vote whomsoever they
may suspect, or pretend to suspect, of an inten-
ion to cast Il fraudulent vote.
The law was cooked up by John |. Daven
port in 1871, under the supervision of The Re
publican Union League Of New York city, and
The prc,cncc for il was to prevent repetition of
the famous Tweed election frauds of 1868.
had made abundant provision against repe-
ttion of the frauds, and when John |. Daven-
port, in 1872, went to work under his law, he
found his work had been anticipated, and
however he found that IN 1868 and 90 a num-
Der Of fraudulent naturalization papers had
been issued by one of the New York city
courts. Davenport seized on this fact, and
though the whole of such fraudulent papers
issued was less than 300, he had 800 extra
marshals appointed, at s. day each, and du-
ring election day on the 9TH of November,
1872, these marshals arrested every foreign
born democrat who had been naturalizcd in
1868 or 90 and who offered to vote, though in
nine cases out OF ten their naturalization was
perfectly regular. Over 1000 democratic vOt-
ers were thus distinguished and locked up un-
til after the voting was over though not 200
OF them held fraudulent naturalization papers
Suits against Davenport for the outrage were
commenced afterwards by the indignant vot-
ers, but as they must be prosecuted in the same
federal court that appointed Davenport, their
progress Is so impeded and delayed that proba-
bly, no Judgment will ever be reached
There was even Il more outrageous instance
of the working of the same laws in ST Louis,
brought to light by the investigation of Il con.
tested election case taken before congress from
that city 1t would take up too much space