The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1880-03-18
The Growth OF Centralisn.

iSHbCASu az thC osI-ouCS su0tCAu6, OuAo
as Second CIafs matter.
The Growth OF Centralisn.
The decision of the Supreme Court O.
the United States, rendered on the 8tl
inst, affirming in sweeping terms tn,
constitutionality of the statutes known
as the Federal Election Laws, would
have been impossible in the earlier days
of the Republic. The doctrine that the
Federal Government can stalk into q
State and take charge of the elections
therein would have been deemed mon
strous hy the trainers of the Constitu-
ton and by the men who controlled
the Republic during the first third of
this century. And the doctrine that
the +. d rI Government has pow.
er to march into State and punish
State officers Tor Offenses against State
laws would have been thought hide
Gus, it would seem, in any hour Of the
Republics existence. But the Su-
preme Court of the United States, as at
present organized, prOnOunces both of
these things constitutional, and the ap-
palling growth of centralism in this
Republic is painfully apparent i'm this
fact. The judicial power is peculiarly
an anchor of the Republic. We re-
Gently took occasion to quote the re-
maj ks of thoughtful American, that
I" it is in the history of the English
Courts still more than in the history of
the English Parliament that we are to
trace the origin and growth of those
popular rights and of that idea of pub
lie liberty, propagated from England
glo-American free institutions are
mainly founded. 1t is thus that they
will be mainly preserved, if they are
preserved. The Executive, obedient
to party demand, or to his own ca
price, may overstep the constitutional
limit, and the Republic, elastic, may
restore itself to its constitutional con-
dition. The people are good constitu-
tiOnal lawyers in many cases. A ma
jOrity in Congress may pass beyond the
constitutional line, and the people and
the Supreme Court are there to heal
the hurt. But when the judiciary,
surrender to an unrepublican heresy
that seems to be all-prevading, and
is subversiye of the letter and spirit of
the Constitution, the friends of the Re-
public may we'll ask each other If they
must begin to number its days. When
unrepublican beliefs possess the high
est judicial tribunal the Republic Is in
deed in peril When the Republic has
an anti-republican. anti democratic, an
Unconstitutional Judiciary, the friends
of the Republic may we'll be alarmed"
The decision of the Supreme Court
in these election cases is sufficiently
sweeping to satisfy the most partisan
Republican demand, whether or not it
was intended to satisfy a partisan de-
mand. Every thing in those Federal
election laws is constitutional. Con-
gress has power to make it I" q penal
offense against the United States for
ANY OFFICER OF ELECTION, at an elec-
ton held for a Representative in Con-
gress to neglect, &C.,
WHETHER REQUIRED BY Law OF THE
STATE OR OF THE UNITED STATES"
That is, the Federal Government can
punish State officers for violating State
laws. "The authority of Congress
over the subject (of these elections) is
paramount" to all State authority.
3" Collisions can only occur from un-
founded jealousy of such authority" of
Congress. Congress has power to
vest in the Circuit Courts the appoint
ment of Supervisors of election" That
is, Congress can impose nOn-judicial,
purely political duties and executive
work upon Federal Judges. The
provision which authorizes the Deputy
Marshals to keep the peace at the cleo
ton is not unconstitutional" In other
words, the Federal Government ia be-
come a police, which the unbrOken de-
cisions of the Supreme Court for about
three-quarters of century say it can
not be.
But the Court go still further. They
lay down the doctrine that Congress
has a supervisory power over these
elections to the extent that the pro-
visions adopted for compelling the
State officers of election to observe the
State laws regulating elections of Rep
resentatives, NOT altered by Congress,
are within the supervisory powers of
Congress over such elections.' There
is no attempt to cite from the Consti.
tuition the authority for this degree of
Federal interference with elections.
The clause of the( Constitution on which
the claims to Federal interference have
been based reads: The times, places
and manner of holding the elections
for Senators and Representatives shall
be prescribed in each State by the Leg
isIature thereof; but the Congress may
at any time by law make or alter such
regulations, except as to the place of
choosing Senators" While this gives
to Congress certain powers to direct
the manner in which these elections
SQ8l1 De n0lO-Oy Cu0 k)<AIblc6-
it does not give to Congress the power
to itself hold the elections. But this
authority does not satisfy this Court.
The Court says, as quoted above, that
even when Congress has neither
"maden nor "altered " the regula-
tions for conducting these elections,
the Congress NAV still stalk into the
States and conduct the elections, and
has power to compel State officers to
obey State laws. This is new doc
trine. This is a new Interpretation of
the Constitution. 1t is not the splen-
did declaration of a late Chief-J Justice
of the United States from his high
place. that this is an indivisible Union
Of indestructibIe States. It is not the
declaration of the supreme Court in
United States VS.. Cruikshank ct al. :
1.-The Government of the United
States, although it is, within the scope
of its powers, supreme and beyond the