The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-07-31

0Ouef8l Ne Re BUtlers m 8m1 000g AU-
thority, Says 1t Il Constitutional.
General Benjamin +. Butler has addressed an
argument to General Joe Wheeler. OF Alabama,
In relation to the federal election bill. based
upon General Wheeler's speech, which was
printed In the Congressional Record last week.
Addressed to the gallant cavalry general OF the
Confederacy. General Buffers letter II particu-
larly interesting. Hers it ia:
Ny Dear General Wheeler: am very mach
obliged TO you indeed for furnishing me with
copy Of your speech on the bill for regulating
Federal elections In several states. have read
1t with the care and attention which II fully de-
serves It was prepared with great labor and
exhaustive care.
Upon the question OF the constitutional right
OF congress, involving Its power to take charge
OF Federal elections In the cases OF exigencies
by the bill. and In the manner proposed, think
your argument Is invincible. As to the con-
stfuction OF the article In the constitution put
upon 1t BY Its trainers, your numerous quota
tons from contemporary opinions seem TO me
conclusively to establish the fact that bat sim
gle exigency was intended to be provided for
by the enactment, and that was when the state
should refuse or neglect to provide for the
election Of members OF the United states legis-
lature.
But the trouble is with section 1, chapter 1.
The language OF that section is entirely univer-
sal In its application. 1.-THE times, places and
manner OF holding elections for senators and
representatives, shall be prescribed in each state
by the legislature thereof" This power given
to the states clearly applies to al such elections
under all circumstances and in every exigency.
The concluding paragraph Of this section is a.
follows: but the congress may ct any time by
law make or alter such regulation, except as to
the places for choosing senators" This provision
empowers congress at any time to make or alter
such regulations. except Is to the places for
Nj Uof ,of<x
This clearly gives ~ much power to congress
to make or alter ''such regulations" with but q
single reservation, and that is as to the place
for choosing senators. So by the plain words Of
the section, the matter Of making and altering
regulations il as broad and universal a. is the
power given to states to make them.
Now II there any rule Of construction Of
statute or . constitutional provision which
allows 1t to be determined in its scope by en-
deavoring to ascertain aliunde what the legisla-
tors meant the statute should cover or what
exigencies should call its provisions into action?
Where the language of the statute is plain,
distinct and imperative, / know OF no such rule
quote no such canon Of Interpretation.
It 10 to be observed that the section In its
terms limits the power of congress in all mat
tiers regarding federal elections in one particular
only, and that IL as to the place Of choosing
senators. This shows the question Of where
congress should be limited In it, power on this
subject, and that was in the minds and acted
upon, too, by the trainers OF the constitution.
If at the time the trainers of the constitution
intended to limit congress in any other particu-
lar when they restrained congress IN one par
ticular, why not In any other? And as they did
not 50 do how can we interpolate any other re-.
striction which statute framed by them does
not express7
Under the rule inclusis unius exclusia alterius,
do not the facts that the section includes one
restriction OF our congress in this regard settle
the Misrepresentation that there il no other re-
striction?
Under this statute is not the exfgency which
should impel congress to enforce this power of
interfering with federal elections, left wholly
to its own sense of duty, TO the country and to
the government?
Your argument. II it had been made In the
constitutional convention. may be admitted
would have persuaded the convention to put In
the restriction which you say ought to be there.
But the insuperable dificulty IL that 1t Is not
there and cannot be put there.
Your argument 10 certainly very persuasive
that congress ought not to act. except under the
EFFICIENCY that you try to find in the section, but
against its 50 acting which would make it, &C
ton uncons itutional.
Let me call your attention to what think
You gentlemen, states right men, do not sum-
ciently estimate-that our constitution has
grown with the growth Of the country in the
last 100 years. You will answer, How can q
written constitution grow?" reply, II do not
know, but 1t does grow.
Our fathers were very Wise men.
Il is wonderful that they saw so much, but
they saw not all things.