The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1879-12-15
State Rights and Presidential Elec.
tions.


The question of state rights is the point
round which the coming debate on the
electoral bill in congress will be warmest,
and, as we have remarked, the two parties
will in the fight find their positions com
pletely reversed-the Republicans appear
ing as champions of the theory of state
rights, and the Democrats as advocates of
congressional authority. In the report
which accompanied the bill 10 the last SEES
sion of congress Mr. Bicknell tDemocraD
OF Indiana said:
In the opinion of your committee, the
right of ultimate determination belongs of
necessity to congress- and cannot be safely
abandoned. Every state has
the highest interest and a right to demand
that the electoral votes of every other
state should be lawful votes, and that re-
suit cannot be fully secured unless the
right of ultimate determination be retained
in both houses of congress"
Strange to say. the Republicans object
to this, and the New l ork Times pretty
accurately represents their views when it
says: If there be one right which, be
yond and above all others. has been con-
coded to belong to state. it is the com
plete control of the choice of its electors
for president and vice president" The
right of state to choose it's electors is
admitted; indeed it cannot be denied
though the Republicans did attempt to
deny it when, in the twenty second joint
rule. maintained for thirteen years, they
provided that the electoral votes of no
state should be counted except With the
consent of both houses of congress. But
occasions may arise when il is difficult TO
determine what states choice is-as, for
example, when there are two sets OF re
turns, or when the officially certified re-
turn, as in the cases of Louisiana and
Florida 10 1876 is au officially certified
fraud Must false certificate from
state, because it bears Sthe official
seal of the state be accepted. even when
il is known to be falsehood? Have
notlthe other states some rights in this
IL after? Have the authorities of one
state a right, by Justification OF the cleo
ton 10 it, TO impose an unchosen president
upon the whole people? This is the new
Republican Interpretation of state rights.
But it is preposterous. 1t places the
state above the country. 1t sub0rdiuates
the interest of the whole people to the cap
rice or corrupt schemes of the dishonest
officials of one state. This was the doc
trIue that made MF. Hayes president; but
it is not doctrine accepted by the Ameri
can people.
If the vote of state is fagrantly falsi-
fed IN it's certificate. there ought TO be.
aud there must be. some supreme power
to repair the wrong, and see that that man
be declared president WHO'S really elected
The Democratic report makes congress
this supreme power, and, as there is no
other tribunal provided, the selection
seems reasonable and warrantable. Con
gress represents the whole people; it
supervises the counting of the votes; and
1t 1t has good reason to suspect the inse-
gritty OF the returns from state. it ought,
a. custodian OF the interests of the people,
to have authority TO examine those returns,
and, it found to be fraudulent, rel ,ct them
Otherwise, in close election, the Repub-
iican officials of Il state might falsify its
Democratic vote, or the Democratic officials
OF state might talsify its Republican
vote, and thus pervert the result of the
national election. 1t is true congress may
itself misiudge or do wrong; but we know
that state authorities haze done wrong.
The power to decide absolutely must reside
somewhere. and it were better that it be
lodged 10 that body which is the highest
legislative and representative power in the
land and which on all other matters speaks
and acts for the whoeapeople