Los Angeles herald., 1890-04-06
FEDERAL INTERFERENCE IN CONGRESS.
IONAL ELECTIONS.


much concern about the purity OF cleo
tions in certain States. This party is
intent on pure elections in Democratic
States-that is where the party cannot
debauch the elections by the use of
"soap," or the scheme of quincunx
blocks. In all other cases Mr.. Quay and
Mr.. Wanamaker, with their big corrup-
ton fund, care less for ballot reform.
The party in Congress is in the throes
of legislative CESSATION over scheme to
enable Mr.. Quay & Company to get
at the negro vote for their own benefit.
1t is possible they may find the Federal
Constitution in their way when they
reach the Supreme Court. In two re-
cent cases that august body, Republican
though it is, has decided in such way
as to leave little hope for these schem-
ers for Federal interference in elections.
Justice Gray wrote both these opinions.
As reported in the New York World the
cases were:
The first case was that of w. /.
Thomas, police sergeant, of the city of
Richmond, appellant, versus Wilson
Loney. This was writ OF habeas cor
pus granted upon the petition of Wilson
Loney by the Circuit Court of the United
States to the police sergeant of the city
of Richmond, Va, who justified his de-
tention of the prisoner under a warrant
of arrest from a justice OF the peace for
that city upon complaint charging
him with willful perjury, committed on
February 2, 1889. in giving his deposit
ton as witness before a notary public
of the city in the case of a contested
election of a member of the House of
Representatives of the United States.
The Circuit Court discharged the pris-
oner upon the ground that the otfense
charged against him was punish
able only under section 1892 Of
the Revised Statutes and was
within the exclusive cognizance of
the courts of the United States. The re-
spondent appealed to the Supreme Court,
which held that by the Constitution the
judicial power of the United States is
vested in the courts of the United States
by the statutes of the United States.
Those courts have jurisdiction, exclusive
of the courts OF the several States, of all
crimes and offenses cognizable under the
authority of the United States, and the
Circuit Courts of the United States have
exclusive cognizance of all such crimes
and offenses except where otherwise pro-
vided by law, the principal exception
being where concurrent jurisdiction is
given to the District Courts of the
United States.
The second case was that of II. Fitz-
gerald, sergeant of the City of Manches-
ter, appellant, VS.. Charles Green. This
was writ OF habeas corpus, granted
upon the petition of Charles Green, by
the Circuit Court of the United States,
to the sergeant and jailor of the City OF
Manchester, Va, who justifies his de-
tention of the prisoner undera judgment
of the Hastings or Corporation Court of
the city, sentencing him to be imprisoned
in the city Jail for five weeks and pay
fine of IS upon his conviction by jury
on an Indictment charging him with I'M
lawfully, knowingly, corruptly and with
unlawful intent voting at an election
held in that city for Representative in
Congress, and for electors of President
and Vice-President of the United States,
on November 6, 1888, being disqualified
by previous conviction for petty lar
ceny. The Circuit Court was OF the
opinion that the United States Courts
have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and determine the matters and
things alleged in the bill of indictment
found in the said Hastings Court of
Manchester, and the prisoner should be
discharged.
In the first case the Supreme Court de-
cides that Congress is the sole judge
of the qualifications of its mem
bers, and any court OF record is compe-
tent to take dispositions on presentation
OF any case before either House of Con-
gress; and if witness testify falsely the
courts where he so testifies have sole
jurisdiction in that case.
The decision in the second case is even
more to the point. Here the Supreme
Court held that by the Constitution of
the United States the electors for Pres-
dent and Vice-President in each State
are appointed by the State in such man.
ner as the Legislature may direct. The
opinion goes on as follows:
Although the electors are appointed
and act under and pursuant to the Con-
stitution of the United States, they are
no more officers or agents of the United
States than are the members of the
State Legislatures when acting as elect
ors of Federal Senators, or the people of
the States when acting as electors of
Representatives in Congress. Congress
has never undertaken to interfere with
the manner of appointing electors or,
where according to the now general
usage) the mode of appointment pre-
scribed by the law of the State is election
by the people, to regulate the conduct OF
such election or to punish any fraud in
voting for electors, but has left these
matters to the control of the States.
These views do not look promising for
those who think the States have no
rights that any Federal official is bound
to respect, and who desire to see the
Federal Government interfere in cleo
tions in the several States on the ground
that the election is for Federal officers.
The Constitution has often been in the
way OF the Republican party, and that
party has therefore but very small
respect for the Constitution. Time and
again the party has trampled the Con-
stitution under its feet. But this may
not always be so.
Tur Ty,ooo rrIcbau tn tba dafapoo Of tho