State Elections

The pleadings wliich lead up to the issues to be decided by a popular election are not usually fratned accordi'ng to the rules laid down by Stephen or Chitty. But the stalwart plea interposed against the Democratie demand that the statute-book shall be so reformed as to prevent the Federal Executive from interfering with State election laws, or putting bayonets about State ballot-boxes, or in any vvay medcUinq witli the peace of a State excepting when that meddling inay be necessary to the execution of a Federal law, is rather more illogical and wider of th6 niiirk that politica] plcadinira i ons ! tor Répre be" (not may Lm in eacli by the Legislatura thereof," and that Congress eannot interfere with such prescription unless to "alter" it or to make entirely new regulations of its own; and secondly, that, as the Havenport law does not attempt or profess eitlier to '-alter" any State regulation or to "make" a new regulation, but does attempt and profess to provide national supervisors and deputy marshals to execute and enforce State laws, it is beyond the competency of Congress and should be repealed. With wbat plea does the Republican party meet this Democratie declaration V llere it is as set forth in the resolutions adopted in several stalwart conventions. The Ohio Republicana demand "the unity of the nation and the supremacy of the National Government in all matters placed by the Constitution under its control." That is a mere truism.which entirely blinks the point of the Democratie declaration. The Maine Republicana declare that "this country is a nation and not a confederacy of States, and that the National Government is supreme in all subjects lodged with it by the Constitution." The lowa Republicana declare "that this county ia a nation, and not a confederation of States ; the Democratie party denies this doctrine, wliich was settled by the war, and is therefore an unsafe party to trust with national life." The Wisconsin llepublicans exelaim that "the republic of tlie United States is a nation, not a conf ederation of sovereign States, and its Uovernment is clothed with permanent authority for the regulation of all subjects of national concern." The Pennsyivania Republicans aver that "the United States of America is a nation, not a league. lts Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstaniUng." Xow, the simple question raised by the Democratie allegation is: "Shall each State be left free to enforce it3 own election laws ? " The inquiry is not whether the Federal Government shall enforce a Federal law for the choice of members of Congress whenever it shall "make" a law of its own. How is the Democratie allegation met by the cry, "This is a nation V" The stal wart draughtsmen of tliese llepublican resolutions were evidently puzzled to describe the political Corporation whlch they define as a "nation." Maine and Iowa cali it a "country," while Wisconsin calis it a "republic," and Pennsyivania alone calis it what the Coustitution calis it, "The United States of America." Yet even a layman can see that all these stalwart "pleas are as inconsequential as if a defendant charged by a plaintiff with breaking into his house and committing damages in it to the ivmouut of a hundred dollars shoulcl reply that honesty is the best policy or that evil Communications corrupt good marmers. The plaintilï would no more contest the doctrine of the copy-books than Democrats do the allegations of Ohio and Pennsylvania which we have quoted. The Iowa Ilepublicans alone have ventvired to commit to type the false assertion that the Democratie party denies the constiiutional trufa of a "doctrine which was settled hy the war." What the Southern secessionists went to war to assert was, tirst, that a State could by itself and for itself decide when the United States had exceeded the political power committed to the United States by the Constitution ; secondly, that a State could by its own act withdraw itself and all the dwellers in it frorn the coerción of Federal law; thirdly, that a State could take such exclusive possession of Federal property within its limita that the United States could not lawiully reoccupy and possesa it, and fourthly, that a constitutional Federal law did not opérate directly on every individual within the United States who violated it, hut could be res train ed or tempered by State Unes. All that content ion was committed to trial by battle, and it was killed by the verdict of vietory. It is a matter of history now, and has nothing to do with an intelligent discussion of the constitutionality and propriety of the Davenport election law. The Democratie party follows the Supreme Court initsdelinition of "The United States" and of the powers delegated to the Government of the United States. Whenever and wherever that Court calis the Government a "nation" it is a "nation." The Constitution was f ramed and ratified "to form a more ■;- f eet Union" than was the confederaron which it suceeeded. What is ordinarily meant by a "nation" is a state which has perfect and complet sovereignty in and over everything within its limits. Texas was such a nation after it became independent of Mexico and before it joined our Union. It attempted to leave the Union as of right, but the war decided that the new relation into which it liad entered was indissoluble. Texas was a "nation" when it was permitted to become and did become one of the United States of America, but Texas is not now a "nation" for the reason that it has forever surrendered to the Government of the United States a portion of those powers of a "nation" which international law once gave to itself. But no one, we suppose, pretends that Texas in joining the Union surrendered all its political rights and powers. A power of taxation, a pólice power, a power to take human life for crime, a power to regúlate the relations of parent snd child and husband and wife, Texas did not surrender. And because it does not possess tliose powers in and over Texas tin; Government of the United States is not, as to tliose powers, a "nation" so far as Texas is concerned. We all concede that there are certain powers and rights which belong exclusively to the United States Government, and that there are at the same time certain other powers and rights which belong as exclusively to Texas and to every other State. Where and what is the line of división and separation 'i The Conatitution bas not laiddown a hard and fast line, but all now agree that as to every Federal law, until it has been either declared miconstitutional by the Suprerne Court or repealed. the United States are a "nation," and that no State Linea exist against a Federal Executive charged with the exeeutioa af such a law who executes it as he is liat liiws are fortion tu be e i' asion oí State point! In rei utional quesnow before the country- always e ccepting the last legal-tender decisión by the "packed court"- the Democratie party follows and intends to follow the teachings and decisions of the Supreme Court, and especially in regard to the last three amenamente, the reconstruction laws, the rights of the freedmen, the rights of voting and the rights of Congress to appropriate money for internal improvements and to regúlate interstate commerce. In respect to all these. Demócrata wijl cheerfully abide by the .; n; ,;s ot that court since 1860. Is nol i.mt fair andpatriotic and law-abi.ung? As to whether the United States be a "nation" as stalwarts use tho word, the Supreme Court bas decided that puint, and we ad vise every young or old Öemocrat who may find" hiiuself tröübled this year withechoes of the Blaineand the Garfleld shrieks to get the seventh volume of Wallace's Supreme Court Keports and careiully read the decisión of a Republican court in the case of Texas vs. White. Jf he has a turn for speaking lic will find therein more nuts than all bis Republican neighbors will flnd it couvenient to crack between this and the next tial