The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-09-27
RIGHTS OF THE STATES.
The House Takes Up the Election
Law Repeal Bill.


State is Entitled to Manage All
Elections Within Its Own Bor-
ders-Republican Members Speak
in Favor of Government Super
vision of Federal Elections.
Washington. Sept. ga bitter partisan
debate was anticipated in the House to-
day, but the attendance was unusually
small on both sides of the chamber when
the rap of the gavel called the members
to order at noon.
On motion of Mr. Grosvenor of Ohio,
joint resolution was passed authorizing
the commissioners of the Chattanooga
National park to use stone and gravel on
the grounds for the puopose of making
foundations for monuments.
Mr.. Talbot of South Carolina asked
consent for the immediate consideration
of a resolution requesting the committee
on banking and currency, after the dis
posal of the federal election repeal bills,
to report the McLaurin bill.
Mr.. Warner, dem, of New York, OBJ
iected.
TUCKER ON STATES RIGHTS.
In the second morning hour. the first
being unproductive of results, the House,
in accordance with the special order. pro
ceeded to the consideration of the federal
elections repeal bill and Mr.. Tucker
opened the debate. He argued that the
statutes which it was proposed to repeal
were unconstitutional, and that congress
had no right to confer the
power that it had done upon supervisors
of election, The right of suffrage
was a right preserved to the states and
granted specifically in the constitution.
The right of suffrage rested in the states
of the union. He planted himself on the
ground that the right Of a citizen to vote
was a 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 queried,
was worth having that was put into the
hands of another power7 He held that
the elective function and the determine
function must go hand in hand.
MIILIKEN MAKES A POINT.
MIR. Milhken, rep, of Maine, asked sew
eral questions on this point, and sug-
gested that the gentleman from Virginia
might be elected from his state as rep
resentative of his district, but If his right
to his seat was challenged, the case would
be passed upon by the federal power
Tucker replied that that was provided
for in the constitution,
Mr.. Tucker declared 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, then, could the
United States by its supervisors and
deputy marshals supervise an election
under a law which it had not
enacted, cor scrutinize the registration,
condition of suffrage in many, of the
states, when the right of suffrage
emanated from the state itself and the
state alone determined it, The right of
suffrage and the conditions of suffrage
should be left to the states. The states
should be permitted to control their own
elections. The object of legislation should
be to prevent conflicts between the state
and federal authorities. The statues
which it was proposed to repeal had been
fruitful in engendering them.
SUPERVISORS AT THE POLLS.
In reply to question by Mr.. Hender-
son, rep, of Illinois, as to whether there
was not a necessity for federal supervis-
Ors at the polls, Tucker said that lie was
not discussing the question of the neces-
sity; he was discussing the question of
power. The propositions contained in the
law were propositions which should not
be allowed to live until the 10th of Oc-
tober
Then Mr.. Ray, rep, of New York and
Tucker got into a constitutional contro-
versy as to the rights of the states, the
republican contending that the United
States ought to have the right to super
wise elections in which the whole
country were involved and the democrat
to the contrary.
Then Mr.. Tucker paid his respects to
John /. Davenport and severely criticised
his action. The atrocities of the Duke of
Alva, he said, did not exceed the atroci-
ties of this man. The day had come
when congress must respond to the cry of
the people and strike from the statute
books these obnoxious laws.
oox's EULoGY OF DAVENPORT.
Mr.. Ray rose to defend Mr.. Davenport,
and referred to S. S. CoX's report eulo-
CYSTIC of that gentleman
Mr.. Tucker inquired whether, if the
gentleman believed that in 1877 Mr..
Davenport was an angel of light, he
could reconcile that character with the
character he had now, except under the
principle that the laws were so poor that
they should be erased from the statute
books. Either Mr. Davenport should be
abolished as corrupt man, or the laws
were so corrupt that they should be re-
pealed. They were an evidence of
past era In our history. We be-
longed to a generation that was
looking no longer to the past but to the
future. We wanted to strike from the
statute books every trace of reconstruc-
tion measures. He belonged to a party
that was not a sectional party He be-
longed to party that did not believe in
anything sectional. The republicans had
violated their pledges of faith, and over
ridden the constitution, had denied the
right of habeas corpus; had shown the
people that they were not worthy Of con-
fidence, and that the people had elected a
democratic President and democratic con-
gress. Applausel.
PATRIOTISM UNDER POLITICS.
Mr.. Brosius, rep, of Pennsylvania, con-
graduated the gentleman from Virginia
on his able speech and he desired to emu
late his example in one particular. He
would be glad to discuss the meas
ure from non-partisan point
of view. He believed that
underneath the fretting stream of our
politics there was patriotism; and to that
patriotism he appealed to-day. He then
spoke against the proposed repeal. He