The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1890-06-12
The Control of Elections.

Il
the Republican party alleges that it is
deprived by all manner of devices-dif-
ferng in different States, but having
one common ,,urpose-Of votes which,
under the Constitution of the land. that
party is entitled to. To this the parties
offending reply that the suppress
sion of votes and voters is necessary to
prevent the threatened destruction of
local government by the numerical
superiority of race ignorance in very
many States. We have right, say they,
to prevent, by force of fraud if need be,
the control of the ignorant in our own
States
Suppose all that to be so; suppose
that all you are doing is needful for
your preservation, and that you must
keep on at all costs-how does that give
you the right to govern us by your
methods If you have the right of
local government, have we not the
right of national self-government? If
you of the States are willing to take all
hazards to save yourselves from igno-
to blame us of the United States if we
refuse to submit to fraudulent DONNA
ton? You think negro domination I'M
bearable. We think fraudulent DONNA
tion crime.
But we need not quarrel. There must
be some remedy consistent with the
Constitution, which was intended to
provide for this very local government
and this very federal government. Each
was to be respected within it's sphere,
and each was to subsist side by side with
the other So far as the election of
members of Congress was concerned the
Constitution provides for the very con-
ditionin which we find ourselves. In the
first instance, the Legislature of the
State may make the the regulations for
election of members, but Congress may
make or alter them in accordance with
its own will. 1t may alter them by pro-
viding for federal supervision, or it may
make such new regulations as will as
sumo the entire election, from registra-
ton to certification.
|
the alteration of State regulations and
| the making of new ones of our own As
to the first method SO far as it was ex-
hibited in the proposed Senate bill for
supervision, the Senator from Alabama.
Mr.. Pugh. when the bill was presented
/ in the Senate, rose and declared
eff the bill becomes law, it's execu-
ton will ensure the shedding of blood
and the destruction OF the peace and
good order Of this country. Its passage
will be resisted by every parliamentary
method allowed by the Constitution of
the United States"
This declaration, made at time when
debate is not usual on a bill, will attract
attention to the objections which are
urged against the Supervisor law. Some
of them are worth reproducing, in order
that people may carefully consider all
parts of a question which must have a
| settlement, and can never have any
final settlement which is not right The
supervisor law is q subject OF objection,
among other things, because, while it
States, it proposes to set watchers over
the state officials, and to use a kind of
dual control liable to all manner of fric-
ton. Moreover, the exercise of this SUI
pervisory power is to be called into
being by petition, thus singing out
by their own signatures those persons
who are responsible for the claim that
the elections need supervision, and who
thereby become obnoxious to the very
violence which they are striving to
avoid.
In some States, like North Carolina
and Virginia, a supervisor law would be
very helpful but there are States and
communities with regard to which it is
said that it would be assuming a terri
BILE responsibility to enact it, Against
such law the South urges sectional
ism and its interference with local self
government; for no supervision which
does not examine all the boxes and count
all the votes is worth the trouble of
enacting. 1t is true that in New York
city, under the able and thorough man
agement of the chief supervisor, great
results have been accomplished by this
law, and elections have been held SO sat
isfactory to both parties that there
have been no contested elections from
that city in my remembrance. Whether
in other regions, among different peo-
pie, in sparsely settled places, this could
be SO well done, is the point at issue.
In what we call theory, no really valid
objection can be urged against federal
supervision, for an honest count can
hurt no one. Even if all the boxes are
subjected to the supervision of a second
set OF men, the result in New York
proves that when once established it is a
solid safeguard satisfactory to honest
people. So easily does the system now
move and so free is it from friction, that
it is doubtful if tenth of the readers
of this article ever remember that
the system is fully established. Many
contests, however, were necessary
to thus establish it in New York
city. But this is a practical world,
where all unnecessary difficulties ought
to be avoided, and where the middle
way is often the best, because it is the
middle way.
In this case the middle course is APP
parently but only apparently - the
most radical. Let the country at once
assume at least the count and return of
its own elections 1t may be that this
could be done in way that would leave
the States which would object to super
vision free from all interference from
their neighbors. as it would certainly
leave us free from false counting and
false returns. They could then govern
their own people in their own way. free
from federal supervision in Congression-
al elections, and the United States could
govern itself, free from all practices
deemed indispensable to local govern
ment. They could, if they pleased, and
at their own risk, try tile experiment of
keeping outside of governmental power
body of men almost Us large as those
govern, and in three States larger. All
we ask is that in National matters the
majority of the voters in this country
may rule. Why should any Southern
man object to this? Under what posi-
BILE pretence can it be claimed that GER