Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1880-03-17
The Federal Election Laws.

Though coming tardily, the importanc
of the late supreme court decisions affirming
the constitutionality of the federal election
laws can hardly be overestimated Tn
two cases upon which the court has pro
nounced are of such nature that the,
bring up for consideration nearly all tn
points in the laws as TO which there ha
been any dispute on the ground Of consti
nationality. One was brought from tn,
United States circuit court for Maryland
and is that of five judges of election in the
city Of Baltimore, who were convicted Of
hindering United States supervisors and
deputy marshals in the performance Of theil
duties. The other is that of Judge Of
election in Cincinnati who was convicted OF
having violated a state law relating to the
election of representatives in congress. The
ground of appeal in each case is that the
law Of congress under which conviction was
had was unconstitutional in the second
case the special point is made that congress
cannot provide for the punishment of an Of
iChbp hEdiiioO u bbdbt law COlulnllbtu ny u
state officer.
The decision now rendered in each of
these cases fully and completely sustains the
constitutionality of the election laws. They
declare the power Of congress to regulate
the election of representatives in all partic-
ulars in which they may require regulation;
to do so by explicit and exclusive enactment,
or by the partial adoption Of the regulations
made by the states; to provide for the appoint
ment of federal officers to attend to these cleo
tions, and of marshals and deputy marshals
to see TO their enforcement, and to vest such
appointments in the circuit courts; and
finally it declares the power of congress to
provide for punishment of any person who
shall violate the regulations thus made by
congress or taken from state authority. In
fact, it is not easy to discover any point yet
raised against the election laws which is
not fairly met by these decisions. Nor is
the constitutionality of these laws alone af-
frmed; the decisions go step farther and
emphasize the spirit of them, gathering un
der the broad wing of the federal power
all that goes to make up congressional
election.
Mr.. Justice Field is found in the minority,
and delivers a dissenting opinion, in which
Justice Clifford concurs. He holds that
congress has no authority over state officers;
that it cannot prescribe their conduct; that
it especially cannot punish them for viola
ton of the state laws under which they hold
their offices. He bases his opinion on the
ground that the states have not "surren-
dered" any such authority to congress.
But nothing could be more explicit than the
clause of the constitution relating to the
election of representatives, as any one will
concede who reads the opinion of the court.
That this result was confidently antici.
pated in the popular mind was plainly dem
onstrated by the elections of last fall. Had
the people been convinced that these laws
were an exercise of unwarranted power by
congress, or that they were, as Mr.. Justice
Field now claims, destructive of the rights
of states, and tending TO build up central
lied government on the ruins of our present
institutions, they would have rendered far
differentverdict. That the sweeping charges
of unconstitutionality directed against these
laws should now be set aside by the supreme
court of the United States as entirely I'M
founded, and that the authority of congress
to defend the integrity and independence of
federal elections should be asserted in such
explicit and comprehensive terms, cannot
fail to be gratifying to the intelligent judg-
ment of the whole country.
As far as the Democratic majority in con-
gress is concerned, this decision asserting
the constitutionality of the election laws,
and upsetting the theory upon which appro-
priations were refused by the house at the
extra session a year ago, affords happy
and dignifed release from a struggle which
was not only certain to be abortive, but
most likely disastrous upon the eve of a
presidential election And accordingly the
house committee on appropriations has al.
ready brought in bill covering the def
cheney for these services last year when no
provision was made for them, and the gen.
eral appropriation bill for judicial expenses
in the next fiscal year will include, even
though it be reluctant and scanty, an item
to pay supervisors and deputy marshals next
November.
The Monroe Doctrine.