The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-09-27
TUCKER's REPEAL BILL.
Debate In the House ON the Federal Eiec-
t!ons Laws.

Debate In the House on the Federal Eiec-
tons Laws.
WASHINGTON. Sept. 26.-Those who
climbed the marbled flights of stairs to the
galleries of the House in search of excite
ment and stinsulating influence of partisan
rancor, which 1t was expected the debate
OH the federal elections bill wonld create.
we're disappointed. The first day of the
debate proved To be unusually tame. The
House was as calm as a mIllpOnd all day.
1t will. perhaps. be several days before
partisan winds will lash the waters into o
Jury. The disappointment of the day was
Mr.. Delivers failure to open the debate
for the Republicans. A temporary indis-
position threw this task upon the shoulders
of MIR. Brosius. of Pennsylvania. Both Mr.
Tucker. who began the debate. and Nr.
Broslus, who replied. however. acquitted
themselves we'll. and held the attention of
the House. Mr. Lawson. of Georgia. and
MIR. Dolliver viii speak tomorrow. Many
colored people listened TO the debate to-
day..
In opening the debate on the bill repeal
ing the federal elections laws Mr.. Tucker
argued that the statutes. which II was pro.
posed TO repeal. were unconstitutional
and that Congress had no right TO confer
the power that il had done upon So Der
visors of elections. The right of suffrage
was q right preserved to the States. and
granted specifically in the Constitution.
of the Union. He planted himself on the
ground that the right of q citizen TO vote
was q right given TO him. not by the Con-
stitution of the United States. nor by the
federal government. but by the right pre-
served in the State and recognized by the
Constitution. What right. he querled.
WAS worth having when put into the hands
OF another p0wers TIE elective function
and the determining function must 20 hand
In hand.
Mr.. Millikcn asked several questions or
tins point. and suggested that the gentle
man from Virginia might be elected from
his State as u Representative of his dis
trIct. but II his right to his seat was chal-
Ienged. the case would be passed upon by q
federal power.
MIR. Tucker replied that that was provid-
ed for in the Constitution. and he hoped
that the gentleman would stand by the
Constitution.
Mr.. MilIiken-I have always done that,
and so have my ancestors.
Mr.. Tucker-Then you are right.
A STATE RIGHTS DOCTRINE.
Mr.. Tucker continued with the constitu.
tlonal srgumen against the law. and de-
clared that if the original right of suffrage
was in the State the federal government
had no right to come in and claim the
power OF counting and canvassing the
vote. How could the United states. by its
supervisors and deputy m~arshals, supervise
on election under q law which 1t had not
enacted. or scrutinIze the registration a
condition of suffrage In many of the Statesl
when the right oil suffrage emaDated FROM
the State itself and the State alone could
determine lit The right of suffrage and
the conditions of suffrage should be left To
the States. The States should be permit
ted 10 control their own elections. The OBJ
ject OF legislation should be to prevent
conflicts between the State and federal au-
thorities. The statutes which it was pro-
posed To repeal had been fruitful IN on gen
dering them.
In reply To n question By Mr.. Henderson,
of Illinois. as To whether there was not q
necessity for federal supervisors at the
polls. Mr.. Tucker said that he was not dis
cussins the question of necessity. he WAS
discussing the question of power. The
propositions cOntgiued in the law were
propositions winch should not be allowed
TO live until the l0th OF October.
Then Mr.. PAYNE and Mr.. Tucker got into
q constitutional controversy as TO the rights
OF the states. the Republican ~cOntending
that the | nlted States ought to have tho
right TO sd pervise elections IN which the III
terests of the = hole country were involved,
and the Democrat holding the contrary.
Then Mr.. Tucker paid his respects TO John
j. Davenport. and severely criticised his
actions. The atrociti-s If the Duke of AIvs.
he said. did not exceed the atrocities of this
man. The day had come vbeD. and now
was. Congress must respond TO the CRY of
the people. and strike from the statnte
books these obnoxious laws.
MIR. Pay ne rose To defend Davenport and
referred to ;. 5. Cox's report euloglstio OF
that gentleman.
Mr.. Tucker incurred whether. il the
gentleman believed in 1S.7 Daven port was