The Portland daily press., 1890-04-28

bear argument much better. Representa-
tives in Congress have nothing to do with To-
cal government. The laws they help enact
are national laws applicable to the whole
country. This being the case, the whole
country is interested to see that they are
fairly elected, and that they represent the
majority of the voters in their districts. The
majority of the voters of State have a
right to demand, and to make laws en-
force that demand, that the members of the
iaw-maklng body of the State, from all the
districts of the State, be fairly chosen and
DC Tue representatives of the majority of
the voters OF those districts. Then why do
not the people of the whole country have the
iish@to demand, and why is it not their du-
w 10 enforce that demand, that the repre-
sehtatlyeS In Congress from all the districts
In the country be fairly chosen and be the
representatives of the majority of the voters
Oh those districts? Suppose the towns and
rites OF State should object to laws made
py the State legislature in regard to the
election Of representatives on the ground
that they were an interference with local
seif-government, would not their claim be
Just as sound as this claim
tnat the making of laws regarding elections
Oh representatives to the national legislature
Dy that national legislature constitutes such
interference? 1t would be replied to the
nrst claim-and conclusively-that as repre-
sentatives to the State legislature made laws
Tor the people of the whole State it was
right and proper for the people of the whole
state to prescribe rules and regulations re
gardlng their election. The same reply is
applicable-and equally conclusive-to the
same claim when set up in opposition to the
regulation of congressional elections by Con-
gress.
But unconstitutionality and interference
with local self-government are by no means
the principal objections of the Democrats to a
Federal election law. Their great objection
is that Frederal election law means loss of
Democratic congressman. They profess to
fear that Republicans will steal congress
lonai districts that do not belong to
them. What they are really afraid of is that
they themselves will not be able under such a
law to continue to steal congress
sional districts, which by right belong
to the Republicans. 1t is notorious
| eA"s aoA e"OAty yCdio pdot, .uISL Dy IOrc6
and then by fraud, they have controlled con-
| gressional districts, in which the majority of
voters were Republicans, and which, had
the ballot been free and the counting been
fair, would have returned Republican repre-
sentatiyes. By this process they have been
able to maintain control of federal legisla-
tion, which did not belong to them; by right.
1t is simply the fear that federal election
law may deprive them of this control that
makes them object to such law. 1t is not
the loss of control of the local government
but the loss of control of the national gov
eminent that they are worried about. The
former is not threatened. The latter is, not
however, because federal election law will
enable Republicans to steal seats, but be-
cause 1t will tend to break up the thriving
business in that line which Democrats have
been doing.for nearly quarter of century.
We have several times expressed doubts as
to the efficacy of federal election law to
produce the result aimed at. We have feared
that the white Democrats of the Sou tn
would circumvent it by keeping the negroes
away from the polls by intimidation, as they
did in Ku Klux days. We are not entirely
relieved OF that fear now. But the fierce op-
position of the Southern Democrats to
such law tends to show that it Is likely to
be more effective than we have believed it
could be, for if they felt that they could
easily circumyent it they would be likely to
treat it with indifference or contempt.