The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1882-11-23
Protection of the Ballot.

Previous, to the election, Judge R.-M
Hughes the requestIef the Chairman ofthe
State Central Committee of the ReadikMe
party. formulated Instructions to Cover III the
election on. the 7th.lSfThe' Dispatch auS,ed a
raling offJndge Gee! L. CHRISTIAN in SoSnfic let
With the opinion Of Judge Hughes and
that paper undertook to controvert Judge
Hughes and sustain Judge Christian, without
drawing the distinction between the nuturv-Dt
the cases they quoted and that to which Judge
Hughes instructions were applicable
From the Dispatch OF the 18th, we take the
following statement furnished that paper, and
its Introductory paragraph, which gives
sufficient response to the request ron ytrfs
Dispatch that Judge ,Hughesse1plain his in
structions. The article bears the marks of
Judge Hughes own pen, although III is not
credited to him as the author. and exposes the
errors into which both the DispahAsnd Judge
Christian fell, IN confounding State with Fed
eral questions. The Dispatch says: aai
A gentleman familiar with the decisions of
the courts as to the act of Congress under
which Judge Hughes issued last week instruc-
tions to the Federal supervisors OF election,
and who tells US that as Judge Hughes issued
them not as a judge but as q ministerial officer
he Judge Hughes) would not necessarily con-
slider himself bound by them in any case wfYicti
might come before him as judge, nevertheless
proceeds to set us and Judge George l.. Chriss
tian right as to the decisions aforesaid in tile
tollowingarticle, which ofcourse we feel bound
to publish: %' i;, .
~ 1t is not the accepted opinion either Of the
Bench or the Bar that the enforcement actoof
May 81, 1870 embodied in the Revised Statutes
of the United States as sections 1904 ct %g,
and $500 etseq). is repealed as to Federal elees
tions by the decision Of the United Natesy 6u !,
preme Court in the case Of United Statesnas!
Reese ct al. ,yjnn
That was case in which judges Tor inspec-
tors) of election. in local election for town
officers in Kentucky, were indicted under sDfife,
OF the sections of this enforcement act. 'The
Court heidi broH 10 naIl9riT ,t4piYa0q
That the power, Of Congress to legslate
upon the subject ofvoting at State ELECTIONS
rests upon the fifteenth amendment and oaa,
be exercised by providing punishment only
when the wrongful refusal u receive The vote
Of Qualified electOr at such elections ia be,,
cause 81 rsce color, Of previous conditioned
1t held that Congress has not provided hy
appropriate legislation for the punishme nto Of
an inspector OF d municipal election for refusn
ing to receive and count at such election the
vote of citizen of African descent" az -
This WAS all that the CourtHdid decide,,n,!oorrl
could have decided, in the case before it,. e m
subsequent cases the same court has treated tire
act as in force, intimating nothing to the CON-.
trary as TO any Of it's sections, Since that pdey[
cisiOn Congress has published 4 new edition of
the Revised Statutes, which retains all III 'setl
tions of the original enforcement act Intact B.
without any note Or memorandum that they
are no longer parts of the law Of the land, !
have no doubt that they are in full force aB 4,
Federal elections. 81 ay
1t is true that some sentences Id the opiniena'
of the Court in United States gs. Reese ct H., II
detached from the context, seem TO have p geno
eral Specification indicating the nuliityq
Of some OF the sections of the act but
it was not in the mind ofthe Court to colstIle,,
them with refefehcssto Federal elections :; and
it did construe them only with refere1c eo Di1
State elections. l3,gr..r, Y,les, b INN +!
Judge Hughes himself held in the HteIsbarg,
election cases that Us To- State elections those sec
tons OF the enforcement act on which the,PH1
tersburg Indictments, were fonnded coul hitaet]
be applied to- State elections, Judge Bond 'dif
fering with him; but he had no thought, II SUP!
Pose, that the SECTIONS were Invalid. As TO Ned7r
eral elections, It ist elementary law that "a,
statute may be constitutional in respect I'd Some
subjects and .unconstitutional"a to dtheEs,
Judge Hughes late instructipns 10 ,,mialshsls
and supervisors were xpressly limited tp S9qh 9,