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

STANDING the1n. lDere u no declaration
that the regulations shall be made either
wholly by the State Legislatures or wholly
by Congress. II Congress does nor inter.
fere, OF course they may be made wholly
by the state; but il 1t chooses 10 interfere
there is nothing In The words TO prevent it,
doing so, either wholly or partially. On
the contrary. their necessary implication is
that ii may DO eitheI.
"The objection so often repeated that
such an application Of congressional regu-
lations TO those previously made by State
would produce clashing Of jurisdiction
and conflict OF rules loses sight OF the fact
that the regulations made BY Congress are
paramount 10 those made by the State Lee
gislature; and II they conflict Herewith.
the latter. so far as the conflict extends,
ceases TO be operative. No clashing can
possibly arise. There is not the slig
difficulty in q harmonious combination
into one system Of the regulations made by
the two soyereignties amy more than there
is in the case OF prior and subsequent
enactmcnts Of the same Legislature.
Congress has partially regulated the
subject heretofore. In 1912 il passed a
law for the election of representatives by
separate districts: and, subsequently, other
laws fixing the time OF election. and direct
ing that the elections shall be by ballot.
No one will pretend. at least at the present
day, that these laws were unconstitutional
because they only partially covered the
subject.
The popularity oj the case consists in
the concurrent authority Of the two soyer-
eighties, State and National, over the same
subject matter. This, however, Is not en-
tirely without parallel. The regulation
OF foreign and interstate commerce Is con-
ferred by the Constitution upon Congress.
II is not entirely taken away from the States.
But where the subject matter is one Of a
national character, or one that requires a
uniform rule, il has been held that the
power OF Congress l. exclusive. On the
contrary. where neither OF these circum-
stances exist. it has been held that State
regulations are not unconstitutional.
$50 in the case OF laws for regulating
the elections Of representatives In Con-
gress. The State may make regulations on
the subject; Congress may make rcgiila-
lions on the same subject, or may alter or
add to those already made. The para
mount character OF those made by Con-
gress has the effect 10 super-ede those made
| BIZ the State 80 far as the two are iDc0n-
slstent, and no farther. There il no such
conflict between them Is 10 prcyen, their
forming a harmonious system perfectly
capable OF being administered and carried
out as such.
d" IA to The supposed conflict that may
arise between the officers appointed By the
! State and National Governments for super
intending the election, no more insuper-
able difficulty need arise than in the appli-
cation OF the regulations adopted by each
respectively. The regulations OF Congress
being constitutionally paramount, the du-
ties imposed thereby upon the officers OF
the United States. so far a. they have Re-
spect 10 the same matters, must necessarily
be paramount 10 those to be performed by
the officers OF the State. Ii both cannot be
performed. the latter one pro tdhfO super
.eded and cease to be duties. Ii the power
OF Congress over the subject il supervisory
and paramount ~ we have seen ii 10 be,
and il officers or agents are created for ear
rving ont its regulations, II follows a. 4
necessary consequence that such OFF,
GERS and agents must have the re-
quislte authority t. act without OBJ
struction or interference from the Of
Ulcers OF the State. No greater subOrdi-
nation in kind or degree exists in this ease
than in any other. Ii exists to the same
extent between different officers appointed
by the State, when the State alone regulates
the election. one officer cannot interfere
with the duties OF another. or obStruct or
hinder him in the performance OF them.
WHERE THERE Is DISPOSITION TO ACT HAIR
MONI0UsLY, THERE Is NO DANGER or Dis
TURBANCE BETWEEN THOSE WHO HAVE DIP
rERENT DUTIES TO PERFORM. WHEN THE
RIGHTFUL AUTHORITY OF THE GENERAL Gov
| ERNMENT Is ONCE CONCEDED AND ACQuIEsCKI
IN, THE APPREuENDED DIFFICULTIES WILL
DISAPPEAR. LET A SPIRIT OF NATIONAL As
WELL AS LOCAL PATRIOTISM ONCE PREVAIL.
LET UNFOUNDED JEALOUSIEs CEASE, and We
shall hear no more about the impossibility
Of harmonious action between the National
and state Governments In Il matter in
which they have mutual interest.
AS to the supposed incompatlbiiity OF
independent sanctions and punishment'
imposed by the two governments for The
enforcement Of the duties required Of the
officers OF election and for their protection
in the performance OF those duties, the
same considerations apply. While the
state will retain the power Of enforcing
such OF It's own regulations ~ are mol
superseded BY those adopted by Congress
il cannot be disputed that il Congress ha'
power to make regulations il must have
bower TO enforce them, not only by pun
ishing the delinquency OF officers appointed
by the United States, but BY RESTRAIN
ING AND PUNisnING THOSE WHO AT
lTEyPT TO INTERFERE WITH THEM n
llHE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES
and if. as we have shown, Congress
NAV revise existing regulations, and add to
or alter the same a. far a. il deems eXpe'
dent, there can be a. little question that n
NAY IMPOSE ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR TIL
PREVENTION OF FRAUDS COMMITTED By TN
STATE OFFICERS on ELECTIONS, OK FOR THEIF
VIOLATION OF ANY DUTY RELATING THERETO
WHETHER ARISING FROM THE COMMON LAW
STATE OR NATIONAL. WHY NOT: Penalties
for fraud aud delinquency are part OF To,
regulations belonging 10 the subject. j
Congress, by its power 10 make or altel
regulations, has general supervisory
mower over the whole subject. what i
there 10 preclude il from imposing addt
tional sanctions and penalties ito those i'm
posed by the STATED 10 prevent such fraIc
and delinquency
at is objected that Congress has NJ
power 10 enforce State laws or TO punish
State officers, and especially has no powe
10 punish them for violating the laws o
their own State. A. general proposition
this is undoubtedly true: but when, II
. the performance OF their functions, STATE
OFFICERS ARE CALLED UPON TO FULFIL Dc
TIES WHICH THEY owETO TIRE UNITED STATE
As WELL As TO THE STATE, has the forme
no means OF compelling such fnlflmen
Yet that Is the case here. 1T is the duty o
, the States to elect representatives to Con
gress. The due and fair election Of thes'
, representatives is OF Vital Importance tC
, the United states. The Government OF TN
United States il no less concerned IL
the transaction than the State govern
ment is. II CERTAINLY Il NOT BOUND II
sr.xp BY A. PASSIVE SPECTATOR WHEl