The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-09-29
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE NATIONAL
ELECTION Law.

ELECTION Law.
Representative Tucker, of Virginia,
In his opening speech OF the debate on
the bill to repeal the federal election
law, attacked the law on the ground of
its unconstitutionality. Thisis the only
consistent ground that the repealers can
take. They cannot come out boldly and
deny the right of negro suffrage. al
though it is nulliiied in all the Southern
States. nor would they dare openly to
advocate illegal voting in the North,
but if they can repeal the national cleo
ton law they will have removed the only
obstacle to their desire in both cases.
If they were frank and honest, they
would oppose tho law on the ground
that it tends to secure fair and honest
elections in all parts of the country, but
as this would make the Democratic
party odious, they attack it on constitu-
tiOnal grounds. efsf2
Mr.. Tucker took the ground that the
right of suffrage rested in the States
alone. being reserved to them by the
Constitution, and therefore tho national
government had no right to supervise
any election, or to take any part In
counting and canvassing the votes. The
right of suffrage and the conditions of
suffrage, he said, should be left to the
States, and they should be permitted to
control their own elections.
This argument is fallaciOus in that it
%confounds the regulation of the right of
suffrage and the regulation of elections.
We might admit all that Mr.. Tucker
claims in regard to the right of the
States to regulate suffrage, and it would
not touch the question OF the constitu-
tiOnality of the national election law.
That law does not assume to regulate
the right OF suffrage, it simply under
takes to regulate the manner of holding
elections for Representatives In Con-
gress. This Congress has an ~undoubted
right to do. The Constitution says that
Congress may at any time make or
alter" regulations relative to elections
for Representatives. No State can
make any regulations On this subject
that Congress may not modify or set
aside.
1t is not true, as Mr.. Tucker claims,
that the regulation of the right of suf-
fragc belongs exclusively to the States.
The States may prescribe the Qualiiica-
tons of voters within certain limits, but
there are some things no State can do.
No State can prohibit naturalized citi-
zens of tho United States from voting.
No State can say that mono but native
born citizens of that State may vote.
No State can deny or abridge the right
of suf rage on account of race, color or
previous condition of s~ervitude. All
such limitations of the suffrage are pro-
hibited by the Constitution OF the United
States, and Congress is given the right
to make the prohibition effective by APP
propriate legislation. 1t is not true,
therefore, as claimed by Mr.. Tucker,
that the right of regulating the suffrage
belongs exclusively to the States. 1t
belongs to the States, subject to the SUI
pcrvisory power of the United States.
1t must be borne in mind that the law
/ liz DCniO avs lOpOb W lcDctt
does not apply to State or local cleo
tons. 1t only applies to national cleo
tons, viz: those for Representatives in
Congress and for President and Vice
President. The position taken by Mr..
Tucker compels hin to assume that
Representatives in Congress are State
officers. That is plainly absurd. They
are chosen by the people of the respec-
tive States. but they are national Off
GERS. Their age, qualification and term
of Office are prescribed by the national
Constitution. They are paid out of the
national treasury. They do not legis-
late for their respective States, but for
the United States. Representatives In
Congress elected from Georgia or Ala
bama assist in making laws for Maine,
Iowa and California. The citizens of
the latter States are therefore as much
interested in having fair and honest
elections in Georgia and Alabama as
they are in their own States.
But the strongest argument in favor
of the constitutionality of the election
iaWs anu an uihDSWcIHUlc Ole, Is tndt
the government has q right TO do any
thing that is necessary for its self-pres-
ervation. All governments worthy of
the name have this right. Its denial
means death to the government. Fair
and honest elections beng absolutely
necessary to the perpetuation of the
government. it has IN u%ndoubted right
to do whatever is necessary To secure
such elections. Some things must be
taken for granted, and this is one. The
Constitution was never intended to be