Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1881-02-17

Price 81 a Year In Advance.
Wilmington, Thursday, Feb, II, 1881
Congress Cannot Disfrancbise Voters
at state Eiections-Ehe Decision in
the Eyre Case.
The charge OF tha Court in tbs Tyre
case was very clea- and emphatic expo
sitiop of the law which left no doubt In
the mind of any one as to the right OF
Furgerson to vote. Ignorant people may
imagine that the positive declaration by
the Court that CongreHs has no power TO
prescribe the qualifications Tor voters al
state elections Is merely the statement Of
one side of the controversy CONCERNING
the powers of the Federal government and
the reserved rights of the states, but such
IL not the case. No losn with any com.
prehension of the meaning Of language
and understanding of our system of gov
eminent, claims that the United States
has, even under the constitutional amend
ments, the power to fix the qualification
of voters ut State elections. The amend
ments merely gave Congress tho power to
say that the states should not exclude men
from the right OF suffrage because OF cer-
tain designated oauses-that is race, color
or previous condition of seryitude, and the
very form Of the amendment recognized
that the power of fixing the qualification
rested in the states, and that it was con-
sidered desirable that it should be limited
TO the extent named in the amendment
aud no further Under the circumstances
the United States Government has no
power whatever to make Acknowledgement
at State election penalty for any
otfense against it. 1t cannot even prohibit
man from voting for President and
Congressman, because the constitutional
qualification for so voting is that he shall
be able under State laws to vote for mem
bers of the most numerous branch of the
State Legislature.
MIR. Tyre, then, clearly acted without
warrant of law in refusing the vote of
Furgerson on the ground that the latter
had, during the late war, deserted from
the Federal army. There could be no
shadow of doubt on this point in the mind
of any honest juror, so We presume the
difference among them was as to the in
tent of Mr.. Tyre in doing so. We do not
wonder at hesitation in this matter, since.
under the charge of the Court, he could
not be held responsible for any honest mis-
take in Judgment, however stupid the mis-
take might be, while in this case
there wss reason to believe that Mr.. Tyre
and one of the judges of the election
thoroughly believed that there was lawful
warrant for excluding the vote of a
deserter aud the election judge was par
ticularly emphatic and made his confidence
in his own Judgment manifest by his
testimony. Mr.. Camperson evidently does
not labor under the disadvantage of any
lack of confidence in his own judgment
of-hand on legal point which it took the
Judges of our court some hours to agree
upon. We should not, therefore, have
been in the least surprised at a verdic,
of acquittal in this case on the ground OF
lack of wrong intent, though it is well
that the jury disagreed since it may make
election officers little careful! in the ex
ercise of the powers with which they are
clothed, for the decision OF Messrs. Tyre
and CamperRon that ii was the duty o.
Mr.. FurgursOn to proge that he aoqs not
deSerter was one of the most preprosperou
ever made by men claiming ordinary in
telligence and does raise a strong pre-
sumption of at least desire to distrsn
chise. It would bother the mos
respectable man in New Castle count
to prove that he WAS not felon it chal
lenged on that ground aud compelled t
disproge it before the polls closed o
election day. He would have to produce
we presume, the court records for eac
county in the State during the whole teri
of his life to disprove it. Yet, acceptin
a mere declaration based on commo
rumor that Mr.. Furgerson was desertei
Mr.. Tyre demanded that he should prov
that he was not such, though, to hay
done so effectively, would have require
the production OF the record
OF The army at Washington
When an election officer rende,
such decision as this, 1t is well that sou
men on jury refuse to agree on verdi
acquitting him of all wrong intent. "
should have been disposed to pity IL
man had he been convicted, but rath
rejoice that he was not acquitted, for
disagreement amounts about to this IN
"guilty, but don't you do it again"