Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 28, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 August 1890 — LODGE’S FORCE BILL. [ARTICLE]

LODGE’S FORCE BILL.

BY EX-SENATOR M’DONALD OF INDIANA. Aa Able Latter Pointing; Oat the Un constitutionality of the Measure Proposed. hy Lodge—ls a Law. It Would Deprive American People of Their Bights. Very recently ex-Scnator Joseph E. > McDonald, of Indiana, received a copy -of Congressman Wheeler’s speech, made in the House of Representatives, against d;hat Republican monstrosity known as dhe force or bayonet bill. In response Mr. McDonald wrote the following letter do the brilliant Alabama Representative: Son. Joseph Wheeler: Mr Dear General,—l have read with much interest your very able and exhaustive, •discussion of the House bill to “amend and supplement the present laws of the United '•States,” known as the Lodge bill. Your review of the proceedings of the national -provision under which the Republican party -claims the right to enact such laws, and of -the subsequent action of the several State -conventions in relation thereto, is a most valuable contribution to the constitutional ■history of the country, and demonstrates -that if the friends of the provision •had then claimed for it tho construction which the Republican party has now put "upon It, It never would have been engrafted upon the Federal Constitution. It was only Advocated as a conservative measure, a secondary power not to be exercised unless the State Legislatures should neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the -purpose, or from any cause be incapable of -making the same, and then only until the Legislatures of the States should make provisions In the premises. The laws to which this bill professes to be -supplemental are the first In which the right -of federal supervision over the election of members of Congress‘were ever asserted. Down to the time of their enactment the .right to make or altor “regulations" for the •election of members of Congress was regarded as a reserved right, only toTje used by Congress to correct any negligence In .any of the States In making provisions for such elections. Believing these laws to be a violation of -the spirit of the Constitution, and most -dangerous In their tendency, as a member •of the United States Senate, in the spring of 1870, I introduced a bill the main purpose of which was to repeal them. This, I am sorry to say, was not done; and they have remained on the statute books as the stock -upon which It Is proposed to engraft measures much more extreme and more directly violative of the Constitution. The general scope and purpose of the Constitution of the United States In regard to 'the election of members of Congress would ■seem too plain to admit of any construction' which would permit the control of such -elections ty Federal officers. The second section dec/ares that the House of Represhall be composed of members •chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors In each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of 'the State Legislature. .The control of suffrage is In the States. The qualifications of the voters are such as may be prescribed by the States In defining' tho qualifications of -the “most numerous branch of the State Legislature.” In brief, in the language of the Constitution of the United States, members of the House of Representatives are to “be chosen “by the people of the United States.” It is incompatible with the free exercise ■of these rights that the officers who supervise their exercise should be chosen by some •other than the people of the States within which they are exercisable, and yet the Federal laws on that subject now in force •and the so-called Lodge bill in a more marked degree assume to provide and do provide for just that kind of supervision. The Lodge bill goes further and vests In the Federal Election Commissioners the power "to determine the qualifications of voters by Authorizing them to revise State registers, to reject votes and to certify results, so that votes which may be received and counted toy the State officers for members of the “most numerous branch of the State Legislature” as legal may be rejected by the Federal officers when offered for members of •Congress, although offered at the same time And place and on the same ballot. Their' States are deprived of a right which the ■Constitution vests In them of determining who may vote for members of Congress. This is an unwarranted usurpation, and if persisted In and submitted to will lead to •other and still more dangerous Infractions of the Constitution.

The same language that reserves to Congress the right by law to make or alter the regulations made by a State for the election •of members of the House of Representatives applies to the election of U. S. Senators, exi•cept as to the place of choosing Senators. In all other respects the power Is the same. Senators, It Is true, are to be chosen by the Legislature of each State, but that right Is no more sacred than the right of the people •of the several States “to choose members of •the House of Representatives.” Iu one ■sense it Is lesa so, as the qualifications of ■electors of members of the House so* expressly limited, and must be defined by the laws of the several States. If the people tolerate Federal Interference In the election iOf members of the House of Representatives, as proposed in the Lodge Bill, can any one say how long it will be until the Republican party will attempt through Congress to interfere with the “manner” of holding elections for U., S. Senators and virtually take those elections out of the hands of the State authorities, and thus put the election of members to both branches of Congress under the control of Federal officers, with power to supervise the elections and certify results? It was a long time before any party arose In this country that possessed the hardihood to insist upon a departure from the undoubted spirit and true meaning of the Constitution on the subject of elections, but once having broken through the just bounds which the founders of the Constitution had Indicated, there seems to be no limit to the -demands. Mr. Justice Story, In his “Commentaries on the Constitution,” As quoted by you, said: “A period of forty years has sin 20 passed without any attempt by Congress to make any regulations or interfere In the slightest degree with the election of members of Congress.” and after further comment adds: “The truth is that Congress would never resort to a measure of this sort for the purpose of oppression or party triumph until that body ceased to •represent the will of the States and the people, and if, under such circumstances, the members would still hold office, It would toe because a general and Irredeemable corruption or Indifference pervades the whole •community. No republican constitution •could afford any remedy for such a state of things.” The time has come when a majority of ■Congress seems willing to pervert the Constitution for the purpose of securing the triumph of Its party and Intrenching It In .power, and It remains to be seen whether the people will submit to Its usurpation. Such schemes have failed In the past, and I, have faith to believe they will fall In the future. If the Constitution “ affords no remedy for such a state of things,” ttoe people will have the power and, 1 believe, the virtue to correct the wrong, T’ery truly

yours,

J. E. MCDONALD.