The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-12-13

tons, the violation OF which il made pun
ishable by the acts OF Congress, are State
laws, and have not been adopted by Con-
gress, Is no sufficient answer to the power
OF Congress TO impose punishment. II Il
true that Congress has not deemed il neces-
sary 10 interfere with the duties OF ordi-
nary officers Of election, but has been con-
tent TO leave them as prescribed BY State
laws. IL has only created additional sane
lions Tor their Performance. and provided
means Of supervision. in order more effec-
tuslly to secure such performance. The
imposition OF punishment implies the pro-
bibition OF the act punished. The State
laws. which Congress sees no occasion TO
alter, but which IL allows to stand, are in
effect adopted by Congress. 1t simply de
mands their fuliilment. Content to leave
the laws a. they are, il Is not content with
the means provided for their enforcement.
IL provides additional means for that pur-
pose; and We THINK 1T Is ENTIRELY WITHIN
] IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DO so. IL j.
| simply the exercise OF the power To make
additional regulations.
THAT the duties dcvolved on the rStatel
officers Of election are duties which they
owe TO the United States. A. well a. to the
State. is further cvinced by the fact that
they have always been 80 regarded by the
House OF Representatives ITSELF In most
eases OF contested elections the conduct OF
these officers j. examined and scrutinized
| by that bOdy a. 4 matter VI right; and
their failure 10 perform their duties is
often made the ground OF. decision. Their
conduct is justly regarded H. subject TO
the fullest exposure, and the right 10 eX-
anime them personally. and 10 inspect all
their proceedings and papers, has always
been maintained. This could not be done
if the officers were amenable only TO the
supervision OF the state government
which appointed them.
| "Anotber objection made i that il Con-
gre,s can impose penalties for violations OF
state laws, the officer will be made liable
to double punishment for delinqUency-at
the suit OF the State and at the suit OF the
| United States. But the answer 10 this i
that each government Furnishes for viola
tons OF duty 10 itself only. When per-
son owes 4 duty to two soyereigns he j.
smenable 10 both for it, performance. and
either may call him to account. Whether
the punishment inflicted by one can be
pleaded in lar 10 a charge by the other for
the same identical act need not now be de
| cidcd. although considerable discussion
bearing upon the subject has taken place
| IN this court tending 10 the conclusion that
such plea cannot be sustained.
"In reference 10 a conviction under A
State Law Tor passing counterfeit coin.
which was sought 10 be reversed on the
| ground that Congress had jurisdiction
over that subject, and might in1ict punish
ment Tor the same offence. Nj. Justice
| Daniel lOnc OK the ablcst, most learned,
and purcst Judges who ever sat on the Su-
preme bench, Virginia mani speaking for
the Court, said II i. almost certain that
in the benignant spirit IN which the insti-
| tutiOns, both of the state and Federal
systems. are administered, an offender who
should have suffered the penalties de-
| nOunccd by the one would not be sub
| jected Il second time TO punishment by the
other for acts essentially the same. I'M
less, indeed. this might occur in IN
stances OF peculiar enormity, or where
the public eaie'y demanded eytraordi-
nary vigor. But, were a contrary course
Of policy or action either probable or usual.
this would by no means justify the conclu-
sion that offences falling within the compe-
ioncy OF different authorities TO restrain or
punish them would not properly be sub
| iected to the consequences which those au-
thOritics might Ordain and atfiX TO their
perpetratiOn.' -FOr rs. ohio. ) How. 40.
The same virginia. judge, delivering the
opinion Of this court in the ease OF United
| states as. MdrigOid. How, $50, where a
conviction was had under an act OF Con-
gress for bringing counterfeit coin INTO
the country. said. in reference 10 F0r'S
case: With the view OF avoiding con-
hict between the State and Federal iuris-
dctions. this court. in the case Of For rs.
| ohio, have taken care TO point out that the
same act might. ~ to it, character and ten
denotes. and the consequences it involved,
constitute an offence both against the State
and Federal Governments, and might
draw 10 IL commission the penalties de-
nounced by either IL appropriate 10 it.
character IN reference 10 each. We hold
this distinction sound and the cOnyc-
ton was sustained. The subject came up
again for discussion in Moore rs. Illinois,
II Howard, Is, in which the plaintiff in
error had been convicted under a State law
for hlrbOring and secretng negro slave,
which was contended 10 be- properly AN Of
fence against the United states under the
lfugitiye-slaye law Of 1913. and not an Of
fence against the state. The objection Of
| llfilNulilfill " - Aiil iAaNtNs -'ii
Justice Grier, for the court, said Every
lciiizen Of the United States is also n citi-
zen Of State or Territory. He may be
said 10 owe allegiance 10 two soyer-
eigns, and may be liable 10 punishment
for an infracton OF the laws Of either.
The saline act may be an offence or trans
erosion oi the laws Of both. Substan-
TALLY the same Views are expressed in
| ii T..J 4.
referring 10 these eases and we do not
well see how the doctrine they contain
can be contrOyerted. 4 variety OF In
stances may readily be suggested, in which
il would be necessary or proper 10 apply
II. suppose. for example. State Judge
having power under the naturalization
laws TO admit aliens 10 citizenship should
utter false certificates OF naturalization,
lCAN 1T BIZ DOUBTED THAT HI COULD BE IN
DICTED UNDER THE ACT or CONGRESS PRO
yIDING PENALTIES FOR THAT OFFENCE, EVEN
THOUGH HE MIGHT ALSO. UNDER THE STATE
LAWS. BIZ INDICTABLE FOR FORGERY, A. WELL
A. LIApaE 10 IMPAIRMENT 50, II CON-
gress, a. II might should pass law liking
the standard Of weights and measures, but
leaving TO the states the matter OF inspect
ing and sealing those used by the people,
would NOT an OuSuurT, uillng tue VlhCc vi
| sealer under State law. be amenable 10
the United States a. well A. 10 the StateY
..If the officers Of election, in elections
for representatives, owe duty to the
United States. and are amenable TO that
Government as well a. to the State, and We
think they are, then, according to the case,
lust cited, there il no reason why each
/ should not establish sanctions for the per-
Torrance OF tire duty owed TO itself, though
referring to the same act.
THE objection that sovereignty Is suct
a. 10 preclude the joint cooperation OF twt
soyereigns, even in matter in which they
are mutually concerned, is not, in oul
, Judgment, OF sufficient force 10 prevent
concurrent and harmonious action on The