Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1880-03-24


relating TO the suffrage Of the colorcC
race. And whatever regulations Con
gress may prescribe as 10 the manner
! of holding the election for Representa-
} tives must be so framed as to leave Tho
election of State officers free, otherwis,
they cannot be maintained. In one Of
the numbers of the FedGdiiN, MIR
Hamilton, in defending the adoption OF
the clause in the Constitution, uses
this language Suppose an article had
been introduced into the Constitution
empowering the United States to regu-
late the elections for the particular
States, would any man have hesitated
to condemn ii, both as an unwarranta-
BILE transposition of power and as a
lpremeditated engine for the destruction
Of the State Governments The vlo-
lation Of principle in this case would
have required no comment" By the
act Of Congress, sustained by the court,
an interference with State elections, as
authorized, is almost as destructive OF
their control by the States as the
direct regulation, which, be thought,
no man would hesitate to condemn.
CONTROLLING THE CHOICE OF SENATOR'S.
The views expressed derive further
support from the fact that the consti-
tutional provision applies equally to
the election of Senators, except as to
the place of choosing them, as 1t does
to the election of Representatives. 1t
will not not be pretended that Con.
gress could authorize the appointment
Of supervisors TO examine the roll Of
members of State Legislatures and
pass upon the validity of their titles,
or to serutinize the balloting for Sena-
tors; or could delegate to special deputy
marshals the power to arrest any mem.
ber resisting and repelling the inter
ference Of the supervisors. But II
Congress can authorize such officers to
interfere with the judges of elec.
tion appointed under State laws in the
discharge Of their duties when Repre-.
sentatives are voted for, it can author.
re snch officers TO interfere with mem
bers of the State Legislatures when
Senators are voted for, The language
of the Constitution comforting power
upon Congress to alter the regulations
OF the States, or to make new regula-
tions on the subject, Is as applicable IN
the one case as in the other. The OBJ.
Jection to such legislation in both cases
is that State officers are not responsible
TO the Federal Government for the
manner in which they perform their
duties, nor to its control. Penal sane.
tions and coerciye measures by Federal
law cannot be enforced against them.
Whenever, as in some instances is the
case, a State officer is required by the
Constitution TO perform q duty, the
manner of which may be prescribed by
Congress, as in the election of Senators
by State Legislatures, those officers are
responsible only to their States for their
official conduct. The Federal Govern.
ment cannot touch them. There are
remedies for their disregard Of its reg
ulations, which can be applied without
interfering with their official character
as State officers Thus, if its regula-
tinns Cor the election of Senators should
disregard of them might be invalidated;
but no one, however extreme in his
views, would contend that in such a
case the members of the Legislature
could be subjected to criminal prosecu.
tion for their action.
INTERFEREYcEo OF SUPERVISORS ILLEGAL.
With respect 10 the election of Rep
resentatives, so long as Congress does
not adopt regulations of its own and
enforce them through Federal officers,
but permits heregulations ofthe States
to remain, it must depend for com.
pliance with them upon the fidelity of
the State officers and their responsible
ity to their own government. All the
provisions of the law, therefore, author.
izing supervisors and marshals to inter
fere with those officers in the discharge
Of their duties, and providing for Grim
inal prosecution against them in the
Federal courts, are, in my Judgment,
clearly in conflict with the Constitution.
The law was adopted, no doubt, with
the object of preventing frauds at cleo.
tions for members Of Congress, but il
does not seem TO have occurred 10 its
authors that the States are as much
interested as the General Government
in guarding against frauds at these
elections and in maintaining their
purity, and, if possible, more so, as their
principal officers are elected at the
same time. If fraud be successfully
perpetrated in any case, they will be
the first and greatest sufferers. They
arc invested with the sole power TO
regulate domestic affairs of the highest
moment to the prosperity and happi-
ness of their people, affecting the ac.
QUESTION, enjoyment, transfer and de-
scent of prosperity the marrisge rela-
ton and the education of children and
If such momentous and vital concerns
may be wisely and safely intrtisted to
them, do not think that any appre-
hension need be felt il the supervision
OF the elections in their respective
States should also be left 10 them.
THE LAWFUL POWERS OF CONGRESS-
Much has been said in argument OF
the power Of the General Government
TO enforce its own laws, and in so do
ing TO preserve the peace, though II is
not very apparent what pertinency
the observations have to the Questions
involved in the cases before us. Nc
one will deny that in the powers
granted TO it the General Government
Is supreme, and that, upon all subjects
within their scope, il can make its au.
thority respected and obeyed through
out the limits of the Republic; and
that 1t can repress all disorders and
disturbances which interfere with the
enforcement of its laws. But ! am
unable 10 perceive in this fact, which
all sensible ncn acknowledge, any
cause for tho exercise of ungranted
power. The greater its lawful power
the greater the reason for the usurp
ing more. Unrest, disquiet and dis
turbance will always arise among q
people, Jealous of their rights, from the
exercise by the General Government
of powers which they have reserved
TO themselves or TO their States.
| PUNITIVE CONGRESSIONAL PROVISION
ILLE0AL