Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1880-07-10


person according TO its wages. Leg
islature, state or national, and par
maneuvrei is the supreme
exercise of his genius, the entangle-
ment and subversion of an antagon-
list being the one form of success
which he aims at and appreciates,
for is not the antagonist competi-
tor for the very preferment he de
sires for himself?
We coneede to Mr.. Garfield the
title of a consummate politician; we
deny to him that of a statesman in
any true sense of the word. If any
one claims the title for him, let
single measure or principle be stated |
which he has commended for as essen
tial to the public good. To scrutin-
ize his record in that respect would
require an overhauling of his public
career for more than twenty years,
but let US take some one subject of
legislative action and test his quail
ties as statesman or politician by
his course in reference to it.
BY far the most prominent ques-
ton in the politics of the last four
years has been the relativeauthority
of the state and national governs
ments in regard to congressional
and presidential elections We are
not going to defend either of the
theories that have been advocated
on this subject, though we have a
very decided opinion on the sub
ject. 1t is maintained on one side
that the state should exercise the
paramount authority in the matter,
and on the other side that it should
rest with the federal government.
1t would have been consistent with
craftsmanship to have taken either
side in this controversy, provided
that the position had been grounded
on conviction. Calhoun and Web
ster accepted conflicting interpreta-
tions of the constitution, staked
their career as political leaders each
on his own Interpretation and lived
and died maintaining it. In other
/ words, each man acted on q fixed
principle in which he had faith.
This is to be a statesman. But the
politician finds it incOnvenient to
have principles. He wants to shift
his position this way or that accord
ing as the party interests or his own
interests may dictate. Accordingly
this is the way in which Mr.. Gar
field has dealt with the question we
have mentioned; he has taken one
view or another at different times
as party exigencies might demand.
| At one time il was convenient TO
contend that in determining be-
tween claimants as presidential cleo
] tons, congress could not go behind
the governors certificate to inVesti-
gate alleged frauds. Then Mr.. Gar
field maintained that everything
relating to such elections must be
done by the state authorities; the
federal government could not inter
pose or even examine into the mat
ter. Here is how he deals with the
question:
| These are the only limitations upon the
| authority of the states in the appointment
/ OF the electors OF the president Every other
act and tact relating To their appointment
] is placed as absolutely and exclusively in
the power of the states as il is within their
| power to elect their governors or their just
4 ices of the peace. Across the line OF these
| limitations congress has no more right TO
| interfere with the states than il has To in
/ terfere with the election OF Officers in Eng
/ land. To speak more accurately. should
| say that the power is placed in the legisia-
/ ture OF the states, for if the constitution OF
| any state were silent upon the subject, its
1 legislature is none the less armed with plen-
| airy authority, conferred upon 1t directly by
/ the national constitution.
II is insisted by those who oppose the view
| / am taking that, though the constitution
| authorizes the states to appoint electors in
/ direct, yet the two houses of congress, in
| counting the electoral votes, may inquire
/ whether the state authorities proceeded III
| accordance with their own laws, and may
| correct any errors in the process, or any YiO-
| latiOn of the state law. To this answer
| that the power to appoint includes the pow
| eT to do all those things necessary to COM
| plete the appointment and to determine
and declare who have been appointed. In
pursuance OF its authority to appoint cleo
| tons, the state may not only provide for the
| holding a popular election, as the mode OF
| choosing them, but it may also provide by
| what means the result Of such election may
be verified and declared.
| The final determination of the result Of
/ the election having been declared by the
| authority empowered TO determine and de-
| clare 1t, that act becomes the act of the
| state and the two houses Of congress can no
more question the primary right OF appoint
| In conclusion I win add that the preserva-
| tiOn of the right of tbs states under the con-
] StitutiOn TO appoint electors and declare
| who have been appointed, is, in my judg-
| ment, matter OF much greater Importance
| than the accession OF any one man TO the
| presidency.
That is what Garfield said in 1876,
but in 1880 he maintained that con-
greSs might take the whole matter
out of the hands of the state author
tiles and manage it for itself, and
even imprisOn state judge for en-
deavOring to carry out the state
election laws. This was because he
wanted to appoint partisan super
yisors to regulate elections in the
interest of the party to which he
belonged. Herein he showed him
self the politician, the man not of
principles but of expedients, adopted
from time to time as party expedi-
ency might dictate.
And his course has been the same
on all other subjects; measures and
principles ara taken up and laid
down again, not at the bidding of
great national interests, but OF petty
and temporary party exigencies.
Our conclusion, then, i'm brief is
that we support the high-principled
statesman Hancock against the
shutfling and tricky politician Gar
field, the man of principle against
the man Of tricks.
Ratification.
The pypcutiVp c0mnittnp settled