The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1892-11-03
ELECTION SUPERVISORS.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ISSUES A
CIRCULAR OF INSTRUCTION.
They Are Directed to Take Such Position With
Their Marshals as They Choose at the
Polls and Closely scrutenize the
Manner Of Voting.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 1.-Attorney-
General Miller has issued o circular
to United States supervisors OF elec-
tions, United States marshals and
United States attorneys in all parts OF
the United States in regard to their
duties at the coming election. At the
outset Miller refers to the fact that ON
Oct. 5, 1886, President Cleveland ad-
dressed to Attorney-General Garland
communication thus:
"Dear Sir:-You are hereby request
ed to take general charge and direc-
tion of the execution of the statutes
of the United States touching the ap-
pointment of supervisors of election
and special deputies and the perform
ance of their duties and their compen-
sation as far as these subjects are by
the constitution and laws under the
the supervision and control of the ex-
ecutive branch of the government"
Miller then says he believes the au-
thority thus given his predecessor is
general and has never been revoked.
The attorney general then embodies
in his manifesto letter of G. M. Dem
nison, chief supervisor of elections for
the northern district of New York
under date of Oct. 1S, 1892, in which
he (Dennison) issued instructions for
the guidance of deputy marshals, and
incidentally of supervisors. Denni-
sons letter is clearly in response to an
inquiry from one of his sub-ordinates,
and in the letter, which Miller quotes
for the purpose of endorsing its pro-
visions, occurs the following:
"SIR-I am in receipt of your letter
of the 11th inst. asking If special
deputy marshals have right to be
inside the place ofsregistration during
the process of registration and
whether they can be inside the polling
place on election day outside of
the guard rail. The question raised
by you is settled by a decision of the
supreme court of the United States in
ex-parte Albert Siebold, Walter Tuck
er, Martin G. Barnes, Lewis Coleman
and Henry Bowers, reported In 10
Otto, 37l. Petitioners were judges of
election at different voting precincts
in the CITY of Baltimore at an election
held in November, 1878, at which rep.
resentatives in congress here were
voted for. They were indict-
ed and tried in the circuit court of the
United States, for an alleged offense
committed by them while acting as
judges of such election were
to fine and imprisonment. They
applied to the supreme court
for writ of habeas corpus to be re-
leased from imprisonment on the
ground that the federal election law
was unconstitutional. Bowers was
convicted on count in the indictment
charging him with unlawfully OBJ
structing, hindering, interfering with
and preventing supervisor of elec-
tion from performing his duty, to.wit:
that of personally inspecting and
scrutinizing at the beginning of said
day of election and of the election, the
manner in which voting was done at
said poll of election by examining and
seeing whether the ballot first voted
at said poll of election was put and
placed in the ballot
box containing no ballots
whatever. Tucker was convicted on
q count in the indictment charging
that he was unlawfully prevented and
hindered free attendance and the
presence of a special deputy marshal
in the due execution of his office at the
poll of said election and full and free
access of said deputy marshal to the
poll of election. Other petitioners
were convicted for other offenses
| , ot thnf 90 aI In
The section of the law on which the
indictments were founded and Other
sections, either of which were sought
to be impeached for unconstitution
ality are sections 2Ol1, 1912, 2018, 2017
2021, 20z2 and in part sections 5514 anc
$500. The decision of the court wal
against petitioners. ] will quote only
such points decided by the court al
are necessary to fully answer your in
quiry. They are as follows:
Sixth-Congress had power by con
stitution to pass the section referred
| to.
Eighth-In making regulations fol
election of Representatives 1t is no
necessary that congress should as
sumo the entire and exclusive contro
thereof. Congress has supervisory
power and may either make entirely
new regulations or add to, alter ol
modify regulations made by state.
Ninth-In the exercise Of such gu
pervisory pow er congress may impose
new duties on officers of election Of
additional penalties for breach of duty
or for perpetration of fraud or provide
for attendance of officers to preven
frauds and see that elections arr
legally and fairly conducted.
Eleventh-Therei nothing relating
to the state or national sovereignties.t'
preclude cooperation of both in th'
matter of elections OF representatives
If both are eqal in authority over thu