The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-04-12
THE REGISTRARS IN NO DANGER
Mr.. James n, Pou Speaks Out in Their De
fense and Shows That the Indictments
Would Have Failed Utterly.

4 regret to see that some Demo-
cratic papers think that Mr.. Holton
conferred a great favor upon the cleo
tion officers whose indictments were
nor pressed at Greensboro this week, 4
said Mr. James H. Pou, of this city
Yesterday. These papers even go SO
far as to think that our registrars We're
in danger of conviction and of in1~
prisonment in the Federal peniten-
tiary.' he added This was not the
case. There was never the slightest
danger of these election officers going
anywhere except back home after their
trial. 1t is regretable that any Demo
cratic paper should make the state
ment that these men were in danger of
being sent to the pentitentiary. 1t is
unfair to the reputation of these men
to say such things, and such statements
are not justified by the Aaw or by the
facts
Asked to give the reasons ON which
he basel these emphatic statements,
Mr.. Pou dictated the following, making
frequent references to his law books
from which he quoted in support of has
arguments He said
Il did not appear for any of those
defendants, but / did investigate this
subject fully when number of the
citizens of Johnston county were ar
rested and tried before a United States
commissioner for the same offense
While / did not appear for any Of these
Western registrars, / know several OF
them and know them to be hightoned
and honorable citizens, against whom
nothing can be said. They are men
who would not do a dishonorable act
They would not let their partisan zeal
influence them to do any act forbidden
by law or good morals. My information
is that they did nothing which it was
not their duty to have done. They
executed the law faithfully and honest
ly and, if the cases had been tried, no
act would have been. proven against
them which was not worthy of an hon
cradle man and good citizen. So much
for the acts alleged against them.
THE ENFORCEMENT ACTS.
"As to the law, it is plain that there
was no statute upon which those in
dictments could be based. In 1870 Con-
gress passed what We're known as the
Enforcement Acts. A number of these
laws were declared unconstitutional
The others We're repealed except Sec
tions 550S and $500 Of the Revised
Statutes. Upon these two sections all
of these. prosecutions, as well as those
in Johnston county last fall, were based.
1t was claimed that the Federal court
had jurisdiction because men were de-
prive Of rights guaranteed to them by
the Constitution of the United States.
"The courts have uniformly held that
voting at State election is not right
conferred by the Constitution of the
United States, and we know that the
election last August was for State Of
ficers alone. The decisions Of the Fed
eral courts, with one exception, have
been to the effect that even under the
Enforcement Acts, before they We're
repealed, the Federal courts had no
jurisdiction except where a representa-
tive or delegate to Congress was
elected.
speaking of the Federal statutes re-
lating to elections, Judge Gresham says:
The Jurisdiction of the Federal courts
in the enforcement of these statutes
depends altogether upon something
having been done or omitted which has
affected or might affect the result of an
election for a representative in Con-
gress.' He goes on further and says 1T
is not plain that Congress had author
ity to interfere with State elections, at
which no representative in Congress is
voted for. Fix Parte Perkins, 29 Fed
eral Reports, page 200.
STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTIONS.
Judge Brewer, now on the Supreme
Court of the United States, decided the
case of United States VS.. Morrissey, 90
Federal Reporter, page 147, and in his
opinion, he uses the following language:
1t goes without saying, under our dual
system of government that the Federal
government cannot take charge of u
mere State election, or an election mere
ly for State officers; and no matter
what wrongs may be perpetrated in
such elections they are beyond the
cognizance of the Federal courts. The
States and the States alone can. punish
offenses which are merely offenses
against the State laws. it has been
settled by the decision of the Supreme
court in ex parte Siebold, 1OO U. s., 81
that where, at the same election, Federal
and State officers are to be elected, the
pose of protecting the election of Fed
eral officers, take cogniZance of that
election and punish offensas which may
affect the election of such officers. It
is clear from the language of the opin-
ion of the court in that case that it was
not the intent of this acJ if it was
within the power of Congress, to al
tempt to reach beyond and punish any
act, however wrongful in or about that
election which affects solely the cleo
tion of State officers In that case. |
quote what the court says In what We
have said it must be remembered that
we are dealing only with the subject
of the election of representatives to
Congress. If, for it's own convenience
State sees fit to elect State and county
officers at the same time and in con-
| junction with that election of represea-
tatives to Congress, Congress will not
be thereby deprived of the right to
| make regulations in reference to the
i matter We do not mean to say, how
ever, that for any acts of the officers
! of election, having exclusive reference