Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1884-08-16
CHOOSING Presidential Electors.

recto whsiever humber OF electors the
State Is entitled to.
That Is wide discretion which is allowed
to the Legislatures OF the several States.
IN South Carolina the Legislature used to
.,e in session on the day Of The presidential
election, aud itself elected the electors OF
President and yicePresideut. There was
no doubt whatever at that tine as TO It's
constitutional power 10 do 80.
But The ease is somewhat changed now.
according to some lawyers. The fourteenth
article OF amendments 10 the Federal Con.
siiiuiion provides that "when the right to
vote at any election FOR the choice OF elect
ors for President and Nice-Prosident OF
the United Ststes, representatives in Can
gress, the Executive and Judicial officers OF
State, or the members OF the Legislature
thereof, is denied TO anyof the male iuhab-
liarts OF such States, being twenty-one
years OF age and citizens OF the United
States. or in any way abridged, except for
participation in rebellion or other crime,
the basis Of representation therein shall
be reduced In the proportion which
the number OF such male citizens
shall bear TO the whole number OF
male citizens twenty-one years OF age in
such State" We say some persons contend
that this amendment forbids the Legisla-
ture Of State TO choose the electors Itself.
This, however, is not our opinion. We do
moi ADM. that the amendment has any such
meaning. But il IT has, law without any
sanciion-without any penalty-is no law (;
and we do not perceive that there is any
penalty attached 10 the offence described.
suppose State Legislature chooses the
electors in 1884, when will the penalty at
tacb, and how long? For one yoar, two
years. four years, or for forty yearsY "Tho
basis OF representation shall be reduced"
But by whom OF by what bodyS or course
by Congress. But suppose the present
Congress should refuse, as no doubt 1t
would, TO try to disfranchise a State.
What then? Would the next Congress
have the right 10 enforce the penalty?
Hardly, for the Legislature might. as soon
as II had elected electors IN 1884, change
the State law so as TO give the people the
right TO vote for electors In 1888. Clearly,
then, thore would be no law denying To
any OF the voters named In the amendment
the right TO vote for presidential electors.
Besides, Congress has never even attempted
10 enforce the penalty against Rhode
against any State that requires educational
qualifications.
But that is not all. The fourteenth
amendment provides the same penalty for
denying TO the people the right to elect
their judges. These are elected in Viz
GINA and In various other States By the
Legislatures. Is that denial OF the right
OF any voter 10 vote sat any election for
the choice Of" judges II SO, why has
nobody In Congress even so much as pro-
posed to enforce the constitutional penalty
against the recusant States? We see no
difficulty In the case. The amendment
means that when the right to vote is de-
MED to part OF the citizens described and
the rest OF them are allowed to vote, the
penalty shall follow. 1t means that il the
election Of judges be entrusted 10 the PEG.
pie, all shall vote. so as TO electors OF
President and Vice-President. The amend
ment merely provides (and was merely in
tended to provide) that no person shall be
denied the right TO vote because he Is a
negro; that IL the whites vote, the negroes
shall vote also. That is all.
Therefore, State Legislature still has
the right 10 choose the electors Of Prcsi-
dent itself. II not, 10 State Legislature
hiss the right to elect judges. This is a
clear case. But II Is not practical ques-
ton IN Virginia, seeing that nobody, Re- |
publican or Democrat. white or black,
would favor a law conllding to the Legis.
lature the power 10 choose presidential
electors.
As 1t thus appears that the Legislature
has full control over the subject, it would
seem advisable to provide by law that all
the electors shall be chosen ut large.
This Is exactly what is done now, but done
"under false pretences." The law pre-
tends to divide the State into districts, but
makes the districting Of the State a mere
name signifyipg absolutely nothing, by
providing in effect that no district shall
choose its own elector. II the Fourth dis.
trict gives the Republican elector ten
thousand majority he will nevertheless be
defeated. Why. There can be only one
reason; and this Is that all the electors are
chosen at large. Then why not let the law
agree with the factl Why not provide in
erins for electing twelve electors at large,
since this Is exactly the way they are going
to he electedy
The section Of the House bin on this sub.
iect which provides in effect that when a
future Legislature shall change the con-
gressional districts, this Legislature now
orders that law OF the future to operate 10
repeal this law Of 1854. and abolish the dis. !
tricts now established, is not a wise pro-
yisior OF law. 1t Is an s.temp, OF the pre-
sent Legislature 20 repeal law Of its own
enacting through the action OF Legisla-
tuft nVt w III tAisttuct. tnls Lcgisll-
ture provides that II future Legislature
shall make new congressional districts thar
fact shall repeal lis own law establishing
electoral districts. This may be consiitt-
tional, but IL Is surely not needed legisla-
lion. There rs no sort Of necessity for II,
whether all the electors be chosen at large,
or part OF them by districts and the others
II large. II win never happen again that
Legislature VIII fall 10 district the State for
he election Of electors. In fact, we don't
hink the State VIII ever be districted
gain. II cannot be that the Legislature
viii keep up such farce. The custom Of
ppointing two electors nj large and the
'thers BY districts is survival, but no,
4 "the Gttest.' IL squlnis at State rights. !
hat IL all that commends It to favor. IL /,
, . custom that might well be buried. {
faius uSus ob0lendus est. a
-
Numbering the Streets.