The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-12-15


Judge Hughes's Letter.
We are 30 crowded for room that In or
der 70 give place to the following article on
the same subject which we treated yester
day we surrender the editorial column to
Il:
TO ne Editor Of the Dispatch:
Judge Hughes has seen ct to publish In
your paper his view Of the law under which
he lately charged the United States grand
Jury and cited the authority on which he
relies, His action may therefore be sub.
iected 70 criticism, and with all proper re-
spect for Judge who has borne himself 90
well In his responsible position, l beg leave
70 review his letter.
The learned Judge states six PROPOSE.
tons Of law as true, the first OF which
contains the principle from which the re-
naming Eve are simply deductions. In
my judgment no more dangerous errors
have ever been announced by any Judge
since the formation OF our Government
and 30 far from being true, they are con-
demned by the United States Constitution
and BY every decision OF the Supreme
Court touching the matter, and clearly SO
by the decision In er parte Siebotd, 10
Otto, S71, cited at such length by Judge
Hughes. The first OF these propositions
Is that "the State, in passing any laws al
fectjng congressional elections, can only dc
70 by authority OF the Constitution and
Government Of the United States"
This means that the authority OF the
State TO rake laws affecting congressional
elections Is derived from the United States
Constitution. The fact is just the con-
frary, When the States adopted the Con-
stitution they were and had beer for years
sovereign. They delegated certain OF their
sovereign powers TO the United States, and
laid prohibitions on the several States as to
the exercise OF certain other OF said pow
ers. but the United States endowed the
States with no powers whatever. II could
not do so, as being sovereign already the
States could acquire no sovereignty from
any source whatever. This is made plain
by the whole Constitution itself, and espe-
cially BY the tenth amendment thereto,
which IL in these words: "The powers not
delegated TO the United States by the Con-
stitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people." 1t will be seen ut once that
IL Judge Hughes's first proposition Is cor
rect, then the State legislatures, In making
laws concerning congressional elections,
are legislating for the United States, and his
second proposition distinctly so declares. Ii
il In these words: estate laws affecting
such elections are, as to them, laws OF the
United States" That tins cannot be true
is clearly shown by the Isl section OF the
LIST article OF the Constitution, which
reads: "All legislative powers herein
granted shall be vested in Congress Of
the United States. which shall consist OF a
Senate and q House OF Representatives"
This clearly prohibits the United States
from legislating through State legisla-
lures, or In any other way except by acts
OF Congress.
In the case of ey parfe SeibOld the Su-
preme Court did not 20 contrary to this
clear direction of the Constitution. That
case arose on the enforcement act passed
by Congress, and certain sections of it
were held to be authorized by the 4th sec
ton OF Article OF the Constitution, which
is in these words:
"The times, places, and manner Of hold
ing elections for senators and representa-
tiyes shall be prescribed in each State by
the legislature thereof; but the Congress
may at any tin by law make or alter such
regulations, except as to the places OF
choosing senator's"
The Supreme Court held (psge 3S9) that
"thcre is no declaration that the regula-
lions shall be- made either wholly by the
State legislatures or wholly by Congress.
II Congress does not interfere, Of course
they may be- made wholly by the State;
but II it chooses to interfere, there is moth
ing in the words to prevent its doing so.
either wholly or partially. On the con-
trary, their necessary implication is that it
may do either. 1t may make the regula-
tons or it may alter them. IL it only
alters. leaving, as manifest convenience re-
quires, the general organization Of the
polls to the State, there results
necessary cooperation OF the two govern
mepts in regulating the subject. But no
repugnance in the system OF regulations
can arise thence, for the power OF Con-
gress over the subject is paramount. IL
may be exercised as and when Congress
sees fit TO exercise it. When exercised the
action OF Congress, so far as il extends
and conflicts with the regulations OF
the States, necessarily supersedes them"
At page $50 the court further held that
"the objection that the laws and regu-
latiOns, the violation OF which is made
punishable by the acts OF Congress,
are State laws, and have not been
adopted by Congress, Is no sufficient
answer TO the power OF Congress
to impose punishment. 1t Is true
that Congress has not deemed 1t ne
cessary to interfere with the duties Of the
ordinary officers OF election, but has been
content to leave them as prescribed by
State laws. 1t has only created additional
FOR
vided means OF supervision in order more
effectually to secure such performance.
The imposition OF punishment implies a
prohibition OF the act punished. The
State laws which Congress sees no occa-
sion to alter, but which it allows 10 stand,
are in effect adopted 10y Congress. 1t SIM
ply demands their fulfilment. Content TO
leave the laws as they are, il is not content
with the means provided for their enforce
ment. II provides additional means for
that purpose, and we think 1t Is entirely
within its constitutional power to do So"
II thus appears that the Court upheld the
sections OF the law before IL (Which, how
ever. did not include section 5511, relied
OH In the indictment against Mr.. Talman)
az proper exercise Of power by Congress,
holding that Congress had the right TO i'm
pose additional penalties for the inicaction
OF the election laws OF the States. OF
course the only question which is open for
discussion IL, to what laws OF the State has
Congress so affixed penaltiesY The sec
tons before the Supreme Court were 5515
and 5522, which relate to acts done at re-
gistratIons and elections. The acts for
which Mr.. Talman Is indicted were not
performed at a registration nor at an cleo
ton, and you have clearly shown in your
paper that they do not come under the acts
Tor which Congress has seen fit to prescribe
penalty.
Judge Hughes holds not, that the acts OF
the officers must be specified by Congress