The New York herald., 1879-10-24
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
ARGUMENT ON A QUESTION OF FEDERAL AND
STATE JURISDICTION

STATE JURISDICTION.
WASHINGTON. Oct. %. 1870.
Tho following business transacted IN the Su-
preme Court of the United States to-day
On motion of I: H. N. Mcpherson. William D. Allen.
of Pennington, N. Y, and j. H. Whitaker OF James,
town, N. Y. were admitted to practice.
No. 719. The United States. plaintiff. VS.. W. w.
johnson ct al.--Argument continued by Attorney
General Devens for plaintiff and concluded by George
Hoadley for defendants.
No. I79. The United States. plaintiff. VS.. Herman
Hirsch ct al.-Upon division of opinion in the
Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern
district OF New York-This arises out OF in
dictment OF the defendants in the United States
Circuit Court for conspiracy entered into in 1873
detraud the United States out of the duties upon
certain imported merchandise. The question certi-
fed by the lower court is whether trial the in
dctment is or is not barred by the statute of mita
FEDERAL AND STATE JuRrsDIcrIoN
No. (original). Ex parte Augustus F. Clarke.
acknowledgements commenced by Il. L. Merrick
for the petitioner continued by Assistant Attorney
General Smith and Attorney General Devens in op-
position to the petition and by George Hoadley for
the petitioner.-Ihs petitioner in this case who
in 1878 of the judges of election for certain
precinct the city of Cincinnati. indicted in
the United States Circuit Court for the Southern
violation of the duty imposed by tho laws Of the
State upon him as such judge in the Congressional
election held on the second Tuesday OF October in
that year. At the February term 1879, OF said Court
he tried and convicted upon the Indictment
and sentenced to twelve months Imprisonment and
TO pay fine OF 5000 and costs. He now petitions
this Court for q discharge upon o writ OF habeas
corpus on the ground that the statutory provisions
under which he was indicted (section 5.5l5 OF the
Revised Statues) invalid and the United States
Circuit Court had no Jurisdiction in tho premises.
1t Is here maintained by counsel in behalf of the
petitioner that the Circuit Court was without juris
dictiou for the that although the violation of
q duty imposed by State may be an
offence cognizable under the authority OF
the State it can never be crime cognizable
under the authority of the United Sates as 1t ought
under article g. section of the constitution,
in order to give the federal court Jurisdiction 1t
Is admitted that Congress may, under article Sec
ton of the constitution. alter regulation pre-
scrbed by State Legislature relative to the manner
OF holding elections for Representatives; but
since the regulation thus altered remains State
law and does not become q federal regulation 1t
must be enforced by State and not federal
agencies. All that Congress has done. however. in
atty for the violation Of the States own regulations
aud this, counsel maintains, is unconstitutional
because 1t obviously exceeds the power vested
by the constitution in the federal govern.
law Of Ohio cannot. In tho nature OF
things be the of enforcing obedience
to any federal statute. 1t is argued furthermore,
that section 55l5 of the Revised Statutes Is
stitutiona because 1t attempts to punish State oih-
for official acts and omissions. State officers as
ssuch cannot, 1t Is claimed bo required to perform
federal duties be punished for their nonperform-
In behalf Of the United States II is argued-
First-That Congress has full and unqualified
power to regulate the manner OF holding elections
for members thereof.
Second-That this power includes authority to
adopt whatever measures may be deemed necessary
expedient in conducting such elections and de-
termining the results thereof.
Third-That Congress can punish any violation Of
the laws enacted or adopted under the Aforesaid
power.
Adjourned until tomorrow at twelve O'Clock.