Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1892-10-19

From an article in the n. Y. Journal
of Commerce under date of October 9th,
L IL r.

LlDeFty is FltcltSS.
From an article in the n. Y. journal
of Commerce under date of October 9th,
we extract the following
The act of Congress passed in 1871 au-
thorizing the appointment of Federal
Supervisors of Elections, on the request
of two citizens in all cities and towns
having twenty thousand inhabitants,
and on the petition of ten citizens in
any other county or Congressional dis |
trict, was blow at home rule, made
solely for partisan purposes, and so. far
as it has had any effect, has worked
only TO the injury and oppression OF
the people. There was no occasion for
it most certainly in New York or Brook
lyn, where the authority so wantonly
exercised by these servants of the Fed
Cral government was most keenly felt.
The course taken by Davenport and his
agents disfranchised thousands OF yo-
ters more honest than their oppressors
and with as good a right to vote as any
citizen in the land. We have made
public at different times the gross
tyranny practiced by these agents OF. a
central government who felt that they
owed no allegiance to the State i'll
which they were called to serve, were
independent of public opinion and
could not be called to account by any
Of the local tribunals for their official
action. We have suffered ourselves the
most wanton insults at their hands,
simply because it was known that we
opposed their appointment, and we
have seen the best citizens, esteemed
such in all our land, treated with an ar
rogance and insolence wholly unpro-
hi nj,
even the semblance of an excuse.
The proposed Force bill charging
and extending this system was once
passed by the House of Representatives
and barely defeated in the Senate,
where it would have been successful, in
spite of Democratic opposition, only for
the good sense of some of the leading
Republicans who set their faces reso-
lutely against it. 1t is now held in
allegiance until after election, because
it never can be popular with the friends
of liberty, but the partisans who Origi-
mated it, if they succeed in their pur-
poses at the coming election, will once
more attempt by it's enactment to grasp
the power it would place in their hands
| to rule the country. 1t was an evil day
that gave to the Federal government
any semblance of right to interfere in
| this fashion with the exercise of the
elective franchise. When the consti-
| tuition was under discussion some one
suggested that the people of the States,
under some fancied grievance or pop
| ular impulse, might seek to break down
the Federal government by refusing or
neglecting to elect the members of Con-
gress. With view to provide against
such an event, after a provision that
I, T al. & al, 10 10 oh II
scribe the times, place and manner of
| inserted in the organic law giving to
Congress the right to make or alter
such regulations.
Not one of the States was satisfied
with this unrestricted permission. New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island
New Hampshire, the Carolinas and
| Virginia protected against it. Those
who had drawn the clause stated that
| the power was to be used only in case q
State should refuse to authorize the
election. ssachusetts in convention
proposed an amendment limiting the
power of Congress to NEEDLE with the
election to the case where the State
should utterly fail to provide for it.
New York added to it's assent to the
Constitution the proviso, that this was
done with the distidct understanding
on the part of all concerned that the
power given to Congress should never
be exercised unless the State itself was
in default and made no provision for
the election.
If all that has been urged in behalf
of the act of 1871 and of the Force bill
itself is true, it is far better that the
evils thus specified, and which accord
~ Il
to remedy, should be suffered than that
the liberties of the people should be
evaded in the manner and form adopt
ed at Washington. We may say the
same thing of the claim that if the I'm
constitutional tax On State bank issues
intended to prohibit them was repeal
ed the country would be flooded with
uncurrent money. 1t would be far bet
ter to have the flood than to have Con-
gressiOnal tyranny and usurpation.
There is no possible danger of a wild
cat bank putting its notes into circula-
ton if the States were free, as they
ought to be, and as they are by the
Constitution itself, to govern their own
banks in their own way. But if the
danger existed this is no proper rene
dy. There are worse things than bank
notes subject to discount when away
from home. Compared with the liberty
bequeathed to us by the fathers the
Alternative sinks into utter insignif-
canoe. Let Congress take it's illegal
grasp from the currency, and the States
will provide against any possible mis-
use of the liberty. But where they do
or not they are entitled to their free
dom. 1t is no justification of slavery
that the victim if his letters were brok-
en- might not make good use of his
rightful independence