The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1880-03-11
THE FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS.
Their Constitutionality Upheld by the su-
prcme Court.
WAsu1NGroN. March S.

WASHINGTON, March S.
A decision was rendered in the United
States Supreme Court to-day in the case
of Albert Siebold ct al, election Judges
of the City of Baltimore, who were con-
victcd in the United States Circuit Court
for the District Of Maryland upon the
charge of interfering with the supervi-
sors of election and United States deputy
marShals and sentenced to various terms
of imprisonment, and who now petition
the Court for writs of haJeas corpus and
ccrfiorari on the ground that the Statutes
under which they were indicted and tried,
generally known as the Federal election
laws, are unconstitutional and void
This Court, in long opinion delivered
by Justice Bradley, holds
First. That the Federal election laws
are constitutional and valid.
Second. That Circuit Courts have ju-
risdiction of indictments under these
laws.
Third. That, under the Constitution
Congress mas supervisory power over
regulations made by StAte for the man
agement of Congressional elections and
may either alter, modify or add to them
entirely new regulations.
Fourth. That in the exercise of such
supervisory power Congress may impose
new duties on officers of Election, or adj
ditional penalties for breach Of duty, or
provide for the attendance Of officers to
prevent frauds and see that elections are
legally and fairly conducted.
Fifth. That the exercise of such power
can properly cause no collision Of rcgu-
lations or Jurisdiction, because the au-
thority Of Congress over the subject
is paramount and supersedes all inconsis-
tent regulations of q State.
Sixth. That there is nothing in the
relation of the State and National sover-
eighties to preclude the cooperation of
both in the matter of elections of repre-
sentatives.
Seventh. That Congress has power,
under the Constitution, to vest in Circuit
Courts the appointment Of supervisors of
elections.
Eighth. That the provision which au-
thorizes deputy marshals to keep the
peace at elections is not unconstitutional,
and that the National Government has
the right to use physical force in any part
of the United States to compel obedience
to its law.
Ninth. That the supervisory power of
Congress includes the power to compel
State officers of elections to observe such
State laws, with regard to the election of
representatives, as Congress may have
left unchanged.
The petitions for haJeas corpus and cer-
tiorari are denied.
A similar decision was rendered in the
case OF Augustus +. Clarke, an election
judge of the City of Cincinnati, in which
the question of the Federal election laws
was also raised.
Justice Field dissented from the opin-
ion of the Court in both of the Federal
election law cases, and read long opin-
ion, in which he maintained that it is
not competent for Congress to punish q
State officer for the manner i'll which he
discharged the duties imposed upon him
by State laws as in the case of election
Judge Clark. The judicial power Of the
government, he argues, is limited by the
Constitution to Ceases in law and equity
arising under the Constitution and laws
Of the United States" and to certain
other cases which the Constitution emu
merates. 1t cannot be enlarged by Con-
gress so rs to embrace cases not enumer-
ated by the Constitution. Furthermore,
the Federal law to punish State officer
for the manner in which he performs
duty imposed upon him by his State,
asserts n power inconsistent with and
destructive of the independence of the
States in matters over which their au-
thority has never been surrendered. If
the Federal Government can punish the
violation of the laws of a State, it may
also punish obedience to them and grad
uate the punishment according to its own
judgment of their propriety and wisdom.
1t may thus exercise supervision over
the legislation of States, subversive of all
their reserved powers. If the Federal
Government can do this, the Tenth
amendment is delusion, and the States
may at any time be degraded to the level
of municipal corporations, existing at the
will of Congress.
After some further remarks upon the
character of Federal legislation since the
war and its bearing on the reserved rights
of the States, Justice Fields says that
until the recent decisions in the Virginia
cases he could not have believed that the
former carefully considered and repeated
judgments Of this Court upon the pro-
visions of the Constitution, and upon the
general character and purposes of that
instrument, would be disregarded and
overruled, but these decisions lin the
Virginia cases. do, in hisjudgmcnt, con-
stitute new departure, and, without
intending any disrespect to his associates,
Justice Fields is of the opinion that the
rules laid down in these and in the pres.
ent cases tend towards the conversion of
our Federal system into consolidated
and centralized government.
Justice Clifford concurs in Justice
Fields opinion.