Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1880-03-24

State regulations sanctioned by the
act Of Congress, when Representatives
to Congress are voted for, amount
prac tically TO supervision of an in.
reference with the election of State
officers, and constitute plain oncroach.
ment upon the rights of the States,
which Is well calculated 20 create irri-
tation towards the Federal Govern.
ment and disturb the harmony that all
good and patriotic men should desire
to exist between il and the State gov
ernments.
JUDGE MARsuALLs OPINION QUOTED.
]. 1t was the purpose OF the trainers Of
the Constitution to erect Government
which could enforce its own laws,
through its own officers and tribunals,
| without reliance upon those OF the
States, and thus avoid the principal
defect OF the government OF the con-
federation and they fully accomplish
ed their purpose, for, as said Chief
Justice Marshall in the Mccullough
case, "no trace is to be found in the
Constitution of an intention TO create
a dependence OF the Federal Govern
ment on the governments of the States
for the execution of the great powers
assigned to il. Its means are adequate
to its ends, and on those means alone
was it expected TO rely for the accom-
plishment OF its ends When, there
fore, the Federal Government desires
to compel by coerciye measures and
punitive sanctions the performance of
my duties devolved upon it by the
Constitution, IL must appoint its own
officers and agents, on whom its power
can be exerted. lit sees fit to intrust
the performance of such duties to
officers of State, il must take their
agency, as already stated, upon the
condition which the State may impose.
The cooperative scheme to which the
majority of the Court give their sane
tions, by which the general Govern.
ment may create one condition and the
States another, and each make up for
and supplement the omissions or de-
iects in the legislation OF the other,
touching the same subject, with its
separate penalties for the same oflense,
and thus produce harmonious mosaic
OF statutory regulation, does not ap.
pear TO have struck the great jurist as
a feature in our system OF government
or one that had been sanctioned by its
founders.
1t is true that since the recent
amendments of the Constitution there
has been legislation by Congress as.
sertng, as in the instance before us, a
direct control over State officers,
which previously was never supposed
to be compatible with the independent
existence OF the States in their reserv-
ed powers. Much of that legislation
vas yet to be brought TO the test of
Judicial examination and until the
recent decisions in the Virginia cases,
could not have believed that the
former carefully considered and re.
peatcd judgments Of this Court upon
previsions Of the Constitution, and
upon the general character and pur.
POSES Of that instrument, would have
been disreoardoA.ood, 1n"nryi i.rS.s srhas4
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 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 law.
:. And they assert for the Federal Gov
ernment power to subject Judicial
officer of State to punshmentior the
manner in which he discharges
his duties under her laws. The
power 10 punish at all existing,
the nature and extent Of the punish
ment must depend upon the will OF
Congress, and may be carried TO a re-
moval IRON Office.
AN NADVANoE TOWARDS GENERALIZATION.
In my judgment, and | say 1t with
out intending any disrespect TO my as
: sociates, no such advance has ever be-
fore been made towards the conversion
of our federal system into q consoli.
dated and centralized Government. !
cannot think that those who framed
and advocated, and the States which
adopted the amendments, contemplated
any such fundamental change in our
theory of government as those decis-
ions indicate. Prohibition again legis'
, lation ON particular subjects previously
existed, as, for instance, against pass
ing bill of attainder and an ca post
, de facto law, or law impairing the OBJ
, legation of contracts and in enforcing
those prohibitions could be authorized
against members OF the State Legisla-
, ture for passing the prohibition laws,
or against members OF the State judi.
ciary for sustaining them, or against
executive officers for enforcing the
, judicial determinations. Enactments
prescribing such prosecutions would
have given fatal blow to the inde-
pendcncc and autonomy Of the States
, So of all or nearly all the prohibitions
OF the recent amendments the same
doctrine may be asserted. In few in
, stances could legislation by Congress
be deemed appropriate for their en-
forcement, which should provide for
the annulmont of prohibited laws in
any other way than through the IN
strumentality OF an appeal TO the lu
dietary, when they impnged upon the
: rights OF parties II in any instance
there could be such legislation author
, izing criminal prosecution for disre
garding q prohibition, that Legislation
. should define the. oilense and declare