Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1880-03-25

ton, and upon the general character
and purposes of that instrument would
have been disregarded and overruled.
These decisions do indeed, in my judg
ment, constitute new departure. They
give to the Federal Government the
power to strip the States OF the right to
vindicate their authority in their own
courts against a violator of their laws,
when the transgressor happens TO be an
officer of the United States or alleges
that he is denied or cannot enforce
some right under their laws. And they
assert for the Federal Government
power to subject judicial officer of u
State TO punishment for the manner in
which he discharges his duties under
her laws. The power to punish at all
existing, the nature and extent of the
punishment must depend upon the
will of Congress and may be carried to
removal from Office. In my judgment
and say it without intending any dis.
respect to my associates, no such ad.
vance has ever before been made to.
wards the conversion of our Federal
system into consolidated and central.
lied government. ! cannot think that
those who framed and advocated and
the States which adopted the amend.
ments contemplated any such funda.
mental change in our theory OF govern.
ment as those decisions indicate.
The clause of the Constitution upon
which reliance was placed by counsel on
the argument for the legislation in
question does not, as it seems TO me,
give the slightest support TO it. That
clause declares that 1.-The times, places
and manner of holding elections for
Senators and Representatives shall be
prescribed IN each State by the Legisla.
ture thereof; but the Congress may at
any time make and alter such regula.
tions, except as to the places of choos.
ing Senator'S" The power OF congress
thus conferred is either TO alter the
regulations prescribed by the State or
to make new ones the alteration or
new creation embracing every particu.
lar Of time, place and manner, except
the place for choosing Senators. But in
neither mode nor in any respect has
Congress interfered with the regulations
prescribed by the Legislature OF Ohio,
or with those prescribed by the Legisla.
ture OF Maryland. 1t has not altered
them nor made new ones. II has sim.
ply provided for the appointment of OF.
hcers to supervise the execution OF
State laws, and of marshals to aid and
protect them in such supervision, and
has added a new penalty for disobeying
those laws. This is not enforcing an
altered or new regulation. Whatever
Congress may properly do touching the
regulations, one or two things must fol.
low either the altered or the new reg.
ulation remains q State law, or it be.
comes a law of Congress. II IL remain
a State law, it must like other laws OF
the State, be enforced, through its in.
strumentalities and agencies, and with
the penalties which 1t may see fit TO
prescribe, and without the supervision
and interference of Federal officials. II,
on the other hasd, it becomes law of
Congress, il must be carried into execu.
ton by such officers and with such
sanctions as Congress may designate.
But as Congress has not altered the
regulations for the election OF Repre-.
sentatives prescribed by the Legislature
of Ohio or Of Mary land, either AS TO time
place or manner, nor adopted any regu.
lAtions OF its own, there is nothing for
the Federal Government to enforce on
the subject. In other words. the i'm.
piled power cannot be invoked until
some exercise of the express power is
attempted, aud then only TO aid it's ex.
ecution. There is no express power in
Congress to enforce State laws by i'm.
posing penalties for disobedience TO
them; its punative power is only
implied as a necessary and proper
means of enforcing its own laws; nor Is
there any bower delegated to it to su,
pervise the execution by State officers
OF State laws. If this view be correct
there is no power in Congress, indepen.
IDENTIFY of all other considerations, TO
authorize the appointment of supervis.
ors and other officers to superIntends
and interfere with the election of Rep.
resentstives under the laws OF Ohio and
Mary land, or to annex a penalty TO the
violation OF these laws, and the action
OF the Circuit courts was without iuris-
diction and void. The act of Congress
in question was passed, as il seems to
me, in disregard OF the object of the con.
stitutional provision. That was design
ell simply to give TO the General Gov.
ernment the means Of its own preserva.
tion against possible dissolution from
the hostility OF the States to the election
of Representatives, or from their neglect
to provide suitable means for holding
such elections. This is evident from
the language Of it's advocates, some of
them members Of the convention, when
the Constitution was presented TO the
country for adoption.
The views expressed derive further
support from the fact that the constitu.
tional provision applies equally TO the
election OF Senators, except as to the
place of choosing them, as il does 10
the election Of Representatives. 1t
will not be pretended that Congress
could authorize the appointment of
supervisors to examine the roll OF mem.
bers of State legislatures and pass upon
the validity of their titles, or to scruti.
nize the balloting for Senators, or could
Ill II l. -