The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1892-11-02

For Kansas-Light rain or snow, fol-
lowed by fair in western portion; slightly
cooler in eastern Kansas; north winds.
TO FEDERAL ELECTION OFFICERS.
WASHINGTON, Nov Attorney General
Miller has issued p circular to United
States supervisors of elections. United
States marshals and United States attor-
neys in all parts of the United States, In
regard to their duties at the coming cleo
tion. At the outset Mr.. Miller refers to
the fact that ON Oct 5. 1886, President
Cleveland addressed to Attorney General
Garland communication, thus:
DEAR SIR-You are hereby requested to
lake general charge and direction of the
execution of the statutes of the United
States touching the appointment OF super
visors of election and special deputies, and
the performance of their duties and their
compensation, so far as these subjects are
by the constitution and laws under the
supervision and control of the executive
branch of the government"
Mr.. Miller then says that he believes that
the authority thus given to his predecessor
Is general and has never been revoked. The
attorney general then embodies i'll his
manifesto letter of c. X. Dennison, chief
supervisor of elections for the northern
district of New York, under date of Oct.
is. 1892. in which he (Dennison) issued in.
structions for the guidance of marshals,
and incidentally of supervisors. The Den
nison letter is clearly in response to an
inquiry from one of his subordinates, and
in the letter, which Mr.. Miller quotes for
the purpose OF lndorstnG Its provisions,
occurs the following:
SIR am in receipt of your letter OF
the 11th inst, asking if special deputy
marshals have the right to be inside the
place of registration during the progress
of the 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
the decision of the supreme court of the
United States in ex-parte Albert Seibold,
Walter Tucker, Martin c. Burns. Lewis
Coleman and Henry Bowers. The case
was heard on the petition Of Seibold and
others for writ of habeas corpus The
petitioners were judges of election at the
different voting precincts in the city of
Baltimore at the election held in Novem-
ber. 1878, at which representatives in con.
gress were voted for They were indicted
and tried in the circuit court of the United
States for alleged offenses committed by
them while acting rs judges of such cleo
tion, and were convicted and sentenced to
fine and Imprisonment. The applied to
the supreme court for a writ of habeas to
he released from imprisonment, on the
ground that the federal election law was
unconstitutional. The decision of che
court was against the petitioners. | will
quote only such points of the decision by
the court AS are necessary to fully answer
your inquiry. They are:
"'S. In making regulations for the elec-
tion of representatives 1t is not necessary
that congress should assume entire and ex-
elusive control thereof. Con-
gress has supervisory power over the sub
ject and may either make entirely new
regulations or add to, alter or modify the
regulations made by the states.
10. In the exercise of such supervisory
power, congress may impose new duties on
she officers ot election, or additional pen
alties for breach of duty, or for the perpe-
tration of frauds. or provide for the at
tendance of officers to prevent frauds, and
to see that elections are legally and fairly
conducted.
III. There is nothing in the relations
of the state and national sovereignties to
preclude the cooperation OF both in the
matter OF the election OF representatives.
Ii both were equal in authority over the
subject, collisions of jurisdiction might en-
sue; but the authority of the national gov
srnment being paramount. collisions can
euly occur from ill-founded jealousy of
such authority.
''l2. Congress had the power, by con-
stitution, to vest in the circuit court the
appointment of supervisors of election.
IS The provision which authorizes
the deputy marshals to keep the peace at
elections Is not unconstitutional. The
national government has the right to use
physical force in any part of the United
states to compel obediehce to its laws aud
to carry into execution; the powers con-
terred upon II by the constitution. Sec
tion 3,22, requires that the marshal
aud his general aud si'ecial deputies
shall preserve order at the places of regis
tration and at the polls, support and pro-
tect the supervisors of election, prevent
fraudulent registration and fraudulent
voting, or fraudulent conduct on the part
of any officer of election, aud it must nee
essarily follow that the marshal aud his
general aud special deputies have the right.
and it is their duty. to remain in all places
where they can best discharge their duties.
whether such places be inside or outside
the guard rail, Notwithstanding the pro-
visions of the laws of the state of New
York
1.-The provisions of the federal election
laws are in force wherever u representa-
tive in congress is voted for; and whenever
any of the provisions of the federal law
are in conflict with state statute, the
federal statutes must be followed"
Thus runs the Denuison letter. After
quoting IL as above. Attorney General
Miller continues:
These instructions, in my opinion, EN-
body correct views of the law. In addi-
tion TO the foregoing instructions | add
the following:
lu the language OF the statutes Of the
United States (sec. ,222il it is the duty OF
the supervisors in their respective election
districts or voting precincts TO be present