Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1890-07-30
The Lodge Election Bill Unconstitutional.

The speech of Congressman Joe Wheeler,
of Alabama, against the passage OF the
Lodge bill, is pronounced by General
Benjamin f. Butler the ablest argument
made on the subject. General Wheeler,
says the Lynchburg Nesos, was especially
strong in pointing out constitutional OBJ
jections to the bill. The warrant which
Speaker Reed and Lodge pretend to see in
the constitution for enactipg such an out
rageous law is found in section A, article l
of the federal constitution, which reads as
follows -
"The times, places and manner of hold
ing elections for Senators and Representa-.
tives shall be prescribed in each State by
the legislature thereof; but the Congress
may, at any time, by law, make or alter
such regulations, except as to the places of
choosing Senator's
Notwithstanding this clause would seem
to give sanction to the Lodge bill, General
Butler admits to General Wheeler that "as
to the construction of the article in the
constitution put upon it by its trainers,
your numerous quotations from contempt
rary opinions seem to me conclusively to
establish the fact that but single exIgency
was intended to be provided for by the en-
actment, and that was when the State
should refuse or neglect to provide for the
election of members of the United States
Legislature"
But, continues General Butler, "Is there
any rule of construction of a statute or
constitutional provision which allows it to
be determined in its scope by endeavoring
to ascertain aliunde, what the legislators
meant the statute should cover, or what
exigencies should call it into action? Where
the language of the statue is plain, distinct
and imperative, know of no such rule,
and in your very exhaustive examination
you quote no such canon of Interpretation"
The New York Sun, however, clearly
points ont to General Butler that there is
such rule of Interpretation, laid down as
fundamental by no less an authority than
Thomas Jefferson himself. 1t is as fol-
lows -
son every question of construction, carry
ourselves back to the time when the Con-
stitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
manifested in the debates; and instead Of
trying what meaning can be squeezed out
of the text or invented against it, conform
to the probable one in which it was passed."
Taking this rule as correct guide, we
find that this very section 4, article 1, was
thoroughly discussed by the trainers of the
constitution and by the States before the
constitution was adopted. The delegates
10 the Constitutional Convention from
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North
Carolina and Virginia refused to ratify it
until its meaning was made perfectly clear.
This was done in the discussion which fol-
lowed, and the conditions under which the
federal government could utilize its power
over Congressional elections were declared
to be only two in number, as follows:
1. Where the States refuse to provide the
necessary machinery for election; and
2. Where they are unable to do SO for
any cause, rebellion, etc. '-
The Stats of New York sought to be
even more emphatic, and, although the
decision of the constitutional convention on
this point, was, it would seem, sufficiently
explicit, New York accepted the federal
constitution with the proviso that the
election section should never be enforced
by Congress unless the State legislature
refused or neglected to pass the necessary
election law; and that this power should
not be used whenever the legislature made
the necessary provisions. The following
was the resolution as adopted by New
York:
"IE full confidence that the Congress will
not make or alter any regulations in this
State respecting the times, manner and
places of holding elections for Senators and
Representatives, unless the Legislature of
this State shall neglect or refuse to make
laws or regulations for the purpose, or from
any circumstance be incapable of making
the same, and that in those cases such
power will be duly exercised until the
Legislature of this State shall make pro-
vision in the premises
This is certainly explicit enough as to
what the constitution means in the matter
of the federal control of elections; and as
none of the conditions under which Con-
gress was granted the right to assume
authority have arisen, its interference now
is unconstitutional.