The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1904-12-17
A Pronosed Force Bill.

Representative Joseph II. Gaines, of West
Virginia, chairman of the House Committee
on Election of President, Vice President and
Representatives in Congress. is giving serious
consideration to President Roosevet's recon-
mendation that law be passed aimed at pun
ishing bribery and other species of frauds in
Federal elections. He will soon call the com
mittee together to give the matter formal con-
sideration.
Several propositions being discussed to have
State elections under Federal control include
the following:
To take entire control of such elections,
naming day different from that upon which
the State elections are held, and provide fora
separate registration and separate election to
be conducted by United States officers.
To leave the time, place and manner Of
Federal election and registration to be regu-
lated by State law aud conducted by State
officers, but with concurrent Federal supervi-
sons by United States officers such as super
visors, deputy marshas, etc.
To leave the time, place and manner OF
registration and election to be regulated by
State law and conducted by State officers, but
passing appropriate laws to punish infractions
OF QuIy aHSCtlug tue lutcSElty anu hOHeSty ~
elections for Representatives and electors; and
this is the method proposed by Mr.. Gaines.
These propositions contemplate control
of registration and elections by Federal
officers; State officials to control registra'
ton aud elections, subject to supervision by
Federal. officers; State elections to be held by
State officials, with Federal courts to have
&c. Sc Ian,
10 registration and elections.
There is no use for such law. Congress
has power to determine who is entitled TO
seats, and electoral votes can be rejected upon
proof of frauds The control of elections by
Federal officers and the power to punish in
fractions of State election laws by Federal
courts, presupposes that Federal marshals and
deputies are more upright and honest than
State officials, and that there is more justice
and integrity in Federal courts than IN State
courts. There is no evidence to sustain any
such contention. la all the Union there Is
not half as much rascality practised BY State
officials AS by Federal Look at the star route
frauds, the whisky frauds, the frauds in the
Indian agencies, in the Postofiice Department;
Look at the conduct of the Federal courts IN
the South, where for some years they we're
mere engines Of persecution, with incompe
tent United States marshas, district attorneys
aud clerks. Look al the Federal census
frauds IN Maryland.
The object ola law for Federal control of
elections and the power of Federal courts to
take jurisdiction in alleged violations Of State
laws, is to intimidate voters and control eiec
tons in the interest Of the party in power.
That such a law would be unconstitutional is
beyond question. That it would provoke
disorder at the polls and clashiag between
State and Federal courts IS also eerain.
1t is doubtful If any such law can be passed
at the present Congress, and there will be
determined stand against Federal control Of
elections By the Democrats in the next Con
or ess, the press and all good citizens