Telegram-herald., 1890-07-25


that The Federal Election bll oil bs
uaeousti tut.onzl 4 made a l2s. Just ice
Miller, IA the Marlborough case, ia d.
lyering TIE opinion OF the court. With
40 dissenting opinion, sald Of the re-
Iatlons Of the National and state govern
ments. 1T seems 70 De often over
looked that q National Constitution
has been adopted n THIS country e.
.a5ilshssg a real gorerRgaelst l.erels, Opez@t-
iag upon persons and territory, and
winch, moreover, = or should Be a. lear 70
srey 4BseuoaA estszes as tss STATE gosera-
aaeaf q. Whenever the true conception
Of the nature OF this government Is
once conceded no real difficulty will
arise ID the llst Interpretation OF rs
powers. Bat 4 We allow ourselves 10
regard the National Government sc
hostile organization opposed 10 the pro-
per sovereignty and dignity Of State
governments We shall continue u be
yexed With difficulties as 10 jurisdiction
and authority
The reality OF the National Govern
ment IS what the Democracy IS slow 10
comprehend, out which viii be forced
upon Their comprehension more and
more, by the stern logic of events, from
now on. We 90 further than the
supreme Court and say that the Nation
al Government should be even dearer
70 every American citizen than the
State government. Ii is only by virtue
OF the National Government that he is
an American citizen, or citizen at all,
in an international sense. 1t Is the
GROWING glory OF ms political existence
and he has no other standing IN the
eyes OF the world.
Having established the reality of the
National Government, the court could
not stultify itself by denying 70 that
Government the right of self-preserva-
ton, the right 10 protect from fraud,
and violence, and corruption the very
means provided for self perpetuaton.
1
that Congress eau by law protect the
act OF voting, the place where 1t Is
done, and the man who votes from per-
sonal violence or intimidation, and the
election itself from corruption or
fraud? These questions answer them
selves, and 1t is only because the Con-
gress of the United States, through
long habit, and long years of forbear-
| ance, has in Difference and respect to
( the States refrained from the exercise
of these powers that they are now
| doubled. In view of the fact
that Congress has plenary and para
! mount jurisdiction over the whole sub
iect, il seems almost absurd to say that
an officer who receives or has custody of
the ballots gwen for Representative
| owes no duty TO the National Govern
ment which Congress can enforce, or
that an officer who stuffs the ballot-box
can not be made amenable TO the
United States. If Congress has not prior
to the passage of the present laws inn
posed any penalty 70 prevent and pun
ish frauds and violations OF duty COM
mtted by officers of election it has been
because the exigency has not been
deemed sufficient to require 1t, and not
because Congress has not the requisite
power"
Having settled the right of Congress
to provide for the protection of the
voter and his ballot, it proceeds to as
sert the right of Congress to provide
means for preserving the peace and for
Furnishing evil-doers: "The counsel for
the petitioners concede that Congress
may, if it secs fit, assume the entire
control and regulation of the election
Of Representatives. This would neces-
sarily involve the appointment of the
places for holding the polls, the times
for voting, and the officers for holding
the election. 1t would require the
regulation OF the duties to be per-
formed, the custody of the ballots, the
mode of ascertaining the result. and
every other matter relating to the sub,
Jet. Is it possible that Congress could
not, in that case, provide for keeping the
peace at such elections, and for arrest
. ing and Furnishing those guilty Of break
ing Il? IL it could not, its power would
be but a shadow and a name. But II
. Congress can do this, where is the diff
ference in principle IN its making pro
visions for securing the preservation OF
peace so as to give to every citizen hi
free right to vote without mOlestatior
or injury. when it assumes only K
supervise the regulations made by the
state, and not to supersede them en-
tirely. In our judgment there is nc
difference, and if the power exists il
the one case it exists in the other"
In view Of these distinctly enunciatec
} principles of Federal law, Il may be a.
we'll for the Democracy TO condue it:
opposition to the bill to questions oil
! policy and necessity, rather than to q
! question Of is constitutionality.
II any "gag rule" is adopted by tbs