Year: 1876

eral Taft that the HERALD has done him in
justice, and defending his circular against
the criticisms which have been directed
against it. We are constrained to say that
Mr.. Taft's arguments and citations fail to
convince us, but we are not sorry that he
has given m occasion for pointing out what
we conceive to be his mistakes of law and
FAULTS of logic. We are aware that his position
as the chief law adviser of the government
creates strong presumption that he is cor
rect and we are in error. We ask no reader
to accept our assertions, but only to examine
our proofs.
We will first show, by evidence so clear rs
to forestall contradiction, that Attorney Gen
eral Taft, in preparing his circular, pro-
ceeded with slovenly haste which precipi-
tated him into gross md glaring inaccura-
cies. In the very beginning Of his circular
he asserts that elections at which members
of the House of Representatives are chosen
include by law elections at which electors of
President and Vice President are ap-
pointed" There is no statute which gives
the least countenance to this opinion, and it
is in fragrant repugnance to the constitution.
The authors Of the act giving the federal
government supervision of elections were
too sound and we'll instructed as lawyers to
make any allusion to the appointment Of
Presidential electors in the bill which they
prepared. They were careful to limit it to
''an election for Representatives or Delegate
to the Congress of the United States" The
reason of this limitation lies in that sec
ton of the constitution which declares
that the electors shall be appointed
by each State ''in such manner as
the Legislature thereof may direct" The
federal government has not the slightest
right of interference. Any State that chooses
may appoint its Presidential electors by its
Legislature, and this method was actually
adopted by several States at On earlier
period and was continued by one Of them
down to the time Of the civil war. Many
States will choose no members of Congress
next November, but only Presidential
electors. Vermont and Maine have already
elected their Congressman Ohio, Indiana
and several other States will elect theirs in
October; New Hampshire chose hers in
March and Connecticut hers in April. Does
Attorney General Taft really think that the
fe ieral government has right to interfere
with the November election in those States
when they are to choose Presidential
electors? The choice of electors stands on
the same footing as the choice Estate officers
and is subject to federal interference in no
other way Why, then, does Mr.. Taft include
them within the scope Of the statute2 Such
looseness and inaccuracy show with how
little care or discrimination his circular was .
prepared and justifics rs in inquiring
whether other parts of it are not equally at
variance with law.


The Attorney General asserts that the de-
cisions of the Supreme Court last March
declaring the Enforcement law unconstitu-
tional referred only to State elections and
not to federal elections. Now, it is true that
the offence charged in both of those cases
was committed in connection with State
election, but the reasoning of the Court was
equally applicable to elections of every kind.
Mr.. Taft instructs the marshals in relation to
'tho peace of the United States, which you
are to preserve, and whose violations you are
to suppress. But the Supreme Court
said:-"Certainly it will not be claimed that
the United States have the power or
are required to do mere police duty
in the States. If State cannot pro-
tect itself against domestic violence the
United States may, upon the call of its
Legislature or Executive, lend their assist
ance for that purpose" Mr.. Taft's instruc-
ton to the marshals to preserve the peace
and prevent its violation without any call
from the State Executive or Legislature is in
open defiance of the decision of the Supreme
Court, which said, in another part of its
opinion, thas 'the powers of internal police
ore not surrendered or restrained by the
constitution of the United States" The
Court recognized no exception to this prin-
ciple in the case Of federal elections, but
applied it alike to all cases in which no
application has been made by the State
authorities after their own power to preserve
or restore internal order had been exerted
in vain.


On the subject Of elections the Supreme
Court was very explicit. 1--WE have decided
that the constitution of the United States
has not conferred the right of suffrage
upon any one, and that the United
States have no voters of their own creation
in the States" 1.-THE right Of suffrage is not
necessary attribute of national citizenship
but exemption from discrimination in the
exercise of that right, on the ground of race,
&c, is" From these principles the Court
deduced the conclusion that federal inter-
ference for any other purpose than the single
one of preventing determinations on ac-
count of race or color is plain violation
of the constitution. But in the Attorney
Generals circular tho instructions are not
confined to protection on that single point