Year: 1879

the manner OF snactlng 1t is somewhat ex-
traordinary, We are thoroughly con-
vinced that in this case-one among
q thousand-the end justifes the means.
As to the election law, there can be no doubt
in the mind Of any person not already COM
mitted to the monarchical theories advocated
and enforced by the Republican party, that
it is not only unrepublican but unconstitu-
tional, because it invests the federal govern
ment with duties and privileges that belong
exclusively to the States. It is not necessary
at this time to enter into q discussion of the
doctrine of State rights. States have rights
especially reserved to them by the constitu-
ton of the United States. These rights have
been infringed Of late years, and as conse-
quence the freedom of the citizen has been
more or less jeopardized. The attempt has
been made to create at Washington . strong
centralized government, having jurisdiction
over all the affairs of individuals, and this
supervisors of election law is one of the
agencies by means of which this result was
sought to be brought about. It is law
which takes from the States the right to
govern and control elections, and places the
personal liberty Of the citizen in jeopardy at
the caprice of an irresponsible partisan in
vested with little brief authority. It is in
no respect republican in its pur-
pose or effect, but has a tendency
to defeat the purpose of the founders of the
government, and promote monarchism.
Such being the aim and object of the law,
it becomes the duty of the Democratic party
to blot il from the statute books.


As to. the test oath for jurors there is
scarcely divergence of opinion. The law
excludes from the jury box all who particle
pated in the rebellion, and commits tho
hearing of all cases, civil and criminal, to
juries composed of the most ignorant of
every Southern community. If political
questions were involved there might be ex-
cuse for the attempt of the Republican party
to make this party question. But no cases
that can possibly arise will involve any
political issue. They will simply concern
the personal liberty or the property rights
of citizens. Can any man of sense assert
that participation in the rebellion disquali-
fes any man from judging impartially any
such issue? There has never been any oc-
casion for such law. Its existence is an
outrage upon the moral sense of the whole
country, and it ought long since to have
been repealed.


As to the employment of troops at elec-
tions, there ought to be no difference Of
opinion. Monarchies have found it neces-
sary on occasions to make use of the mill
tary to obstruct the free expression of the
will of the subject at the polls. A republic
ought not to adopt such course. The will
of the people, no matter how expressed,
ought to be the supreme law of the land,
and the fullest liberty ought to be accorded
for the expression of that will. The civil
authority is ample to maintain order in every
part of the country, and to that power be-
longs the duty of regulating and controlling
the elections. The presence of military
force at the polls is menace to every per-
son who exercises the right of suffrage, and
such threat ought to be removed forever.


All of the changes contemplated by the
Democratic party ought to commend them
selves to the public at large, without regard
to party affiliations. They simply expunge
arbitrary and undemooratio laws, enacted in
times of great public excitement. These
laws might be used to the advantage of the
Democratic party when it attains absolute
power two years hence, but they are SO re-
pugnant to Democratic ideas that the de-
mand for their repeal overpowers any and
all selfish or partisan considerations, and
therefore they must be obliterated. The
cause of free government demands it, and
in such q cause the Democracy will not be
found wanting in zeal.