Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1879-03-28
LOCALIZED SCOUNDRELIsM.
A Concise Definition or the Federal
Election Law-lts Immediate Re-
peal Necessary-Andt this Can
be Effected Only by UtiI.
izing the ApprOpria-
ton Bills.

Utica On. " Observer: ION the question
OF repeating thei unconstitutional Federal
election acts, the Democrats are SO clearly in
the right that the Republicans have virtually
abandoned the argument ON its merits, and
have put In demand for more time. They
make plausible statement to the effect that
the repeal should be taken up in the regular
order of legislative business, and should NOT
be forced through congress at an extra ses-
sion. Further, they profess to believe that IL
should form distinct act and should not be
tackled to an appropriation bill. It Is proper
to consider these points fairly. First as to
the question OF time. Congress will meet in
regular session IN December, 1879 Six
weeks or two months will elapse before any
important bill can go through the regular
process and be enacted into a law. This
delay would carry US to January or
February, 1880. 1t 4ould be the event of a
Presidential canvass The country would be
stirred to partisan activity. A fair discussion
of abstract politics could not then be had.
The Republicans would assert that the DEM
ocrats had repealed the Federal election law
to aid them IN carrying the doubtful States.
and the Democrats would respond that thew
had done 1t to prevent the Republicans from
repeating the frauds of 1876. With so many
other subjects claiming attention, this repeal
could not get the attention it deserves, and II
would be handled on both sides unfairly. IL
is hardly necessary to say that if we did not
believe the Federal election laws were bad in
theory, and worse In practice, we should not
advocate their abrogatioD. They are a me-
mace to our institutions. They give to ire.
sponsible judges who, in some Instances, have
proved themselves unmitigated kpayes. a
larger power than the general government
legitimately possesses. They foist upon Utica
forty needless Office holders, at an expense
of twenty-five hundred dollars for each
congressional election, and this money
goes, not to purifying the ballot, but
to tattenlng few objects of quasi judicial
favor. This system involves an expendi-
ture of not less than three million dollars a
year. 1t enables beggarly and irresponsi-
bic minority IN some of the States to control
the whole machinery of an election, through
power derived from distant sources. 1t in
wolves the use of the army to intimidate
voters and on occasions to set aside the YER
dict OF the people. In England, if the
troops OF the government should take DOS
session of a polling place under orders from
the queen. the queens read would pay the
penalty. In France, if the military should
pass upon the title of the civil authority. as
was done in Louisiana and South Carolina.
there would be revolution inside of TWENTY
Jour hours. In no other country on the face
of the earth, with the possible exception of
CHINA, would the crimes wrought under cover
of this Federal election system be permitted
to go UNPUBLISHED. 1t has already been sue
cessfully used to deprive the people of their
chosen Chief Magistrate. Under its opera
ton drunken judge has prevented State
from exercising its sovereign rights. A SUBJ
ordinate official in New York city, with this
system at his back, has driven from the polls
ten thousand voters. We submit that it Is
time to repeal these lawless statutes. The
however, insist that when the
people understand the question they will
condemn the party that favors repeal.
If they really believe that they ought to
welcome early action, with a view to Sc
,uring abundant time for the discussion !
They want to raise an issue over the abroga- |
ion of these acts. We are not only ready to /
meet the issue, but we maintain that it should |
,e raised Immediately, that all phases of it |
nay be duly weighed before the Presidential
lection of 1880 crowds 1t Into the back