Northern Ohio journal. [volume] (Painesville, Ohio) 1872-1896, 1880-04-03
More Capitalization.

1t was true word that Senator Car
penter spoke in the Fitz John Porter
case when he said: ga careful obser-
yer of the tendencies of our time can
not fail to see that in every branch of
our Government we are running to-
wards consolidation and Capitalization
of power" OF its truth no better il
lustration could possibly be given than
the decision rendered by the United
States Supreme Court in the election
cases, SO called. By its first decision
the Court seemed to strain the doctrine
of Federal control over the machinery
of State Government to the utmost;
but the decisions of Monday show that
the extreme point was not reached in
the cases first referred to if indeed. it
has yet been reached. In the Tenne-
see case it was held, in substance, that
an officer of the Federal Government
may, in the real or pretended discharge
of his official duty, break any law of
the State without incurring any respon-
sibility to the State. If he has a war;
rant for the arrest of any person he
may rob the latter without mourning
any liability under the State law
against larceny, or kill him without
being subjected to the risk of indict-
ment for homicide. He has simply to
appeal to the Federal Courts for pro-
lection; and if he is tried at all it t"must
be before those tribunals. What such
atrial means the people of Michigan
learned some years since, by actual ex-
perience. A Deputy Marshal of the
United States, while in the discharge of
his duty, shot a citizen of Michigan who
subsequently died from the effects of his
wound. The United States Court as
sumed jurisdiction of the case, notupon
the ground taken by the Supreme Court
in the Tennessee case, but upon the as
sumption that the shooting took place
within the admiralty jurisdiction of the
United States. The officer was tried
and found guilty of manslaughter; but
his punishment was a farce. He was
fined less than disturber Of the peace
would have been in the Police Court
one dollar was the exact sum, if we re-
member rightly-and sentenced to
twentyfour hours imprisonment. He
was subsequently tried and punished
under the State law, with more regard
for the gravity of the case; but if the
doctrine of the Tennessee case had been
in force at the time, he would have es
capped with the ridiculous pretense OF
punishment referred to.
But while the doctrine of the Tennes-
see case carries such consequences, tho
doctrine of the decision in the election
cases carries consequences infinitely
more dangerous, not only to our sys-
tenn of Government, but to the personal
liberty which should be the first prov
ince of any system of Government to
protect Under the doctrine first
named, Federal official, charged with
the infraction of State law, can be
tried by the Federal Courts; but his
trial and conviction, and punishment.
if he received any, would be a bar to his
trial by the State tribunals. Under
| the decision of the election cases,
trial and conviction by the Fed
eral Court would be no bar to
trial in the State Courts. The act of
| Congress makes it an offense for an
| election officer to neglect or violate any
duty enjoined by the State law. For
such neglect or violation he may, there
fore, be punished both under the act OF
| Congress and under the State law. He
would find no protection in the provis-
ion which, in the Federal Constitution
and in the Constitution of most, if not
all, of the States, prohibits two trials
for the same offense. For while the act
of neglecting or violating duty i'm.
| posed by State law would be the
same, whether inquired into by Fed.
eral or State court, the offense would
in the one case, be against an act OF
| Congress and punishable Hereunder,
while in the other it would be against
the State law imposing the duty and
punishable in accordance with the laws
of the State. The injustice of a doc.
trine which works such consequences
needs no comment.
There has been no little confusion o1
ideas in respect to the question involved
in this latest decision of the Supreme
Court, owing to the erroneous classifi.
cation of it with the questions of consti
tutional construction involved in the
Tennessee case and the other cases de
cided at the same time In a genera
way the questions have a certain SINH.
larity; but there is this important diff
ference between them: The entire
effect of the Supreme Court decision il
the election cases can be done away
with by act of Congress-; while the
doctrine laid down in the other cases
cannot be wholly abrogated without
| Constitutional amendment. The ma
jority in Congress saw this very clearly
at the extra session; and whatever may
be said of the methods resorted to il
attempting to secure the repeal of the
Election laws, the purpose in view was
laudable and right. The decision O.
the Supreme Court shows the necessity
for another effort; and, it rests with the
people to say at the coming election il
November whether the effort shall bt
successful OF not.
The Capitalization which is response
BILE for this latest encroachment upo1
local government is Congressional cen
tralization. 1t has the advantage ovel
Executive and judicial centralizatio1
that it fiEds partial warrant in the Con
stitution. That instrument gives tt
Congress the power to make regula
tions as to the time, place and manne
of holding Congressional elections; bu
it rests entirely with Congress to sa,
whether it is expedient to exercise tn
power. In the light of the construc
tion which the Supreme Court has pu
upon the exercise attempted under Re
publican rule, no Congress which fairl
represents the people, can well help dc
Gliding that the exercise is ineXpedient
-Detr0it Free Press