CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



171 



exclude the action of Congress. By first taking juris- 

 diction of the subject, the State would acquire exclu- 

 sive jurisdiction in virtue of a well-known principle 

 applicable to courts having coordinate jurisdiction over 

 the same mutter. But no such equality exists in the 

 present case. The power of Congress, as we have 

 seen, is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, 

 and to any extent which it deems expedient ; and so 

 lar as it is exercised, and no further, the regulations 

 effected supersede those of the State which are incon- 

 sistent therewith. 



" As a general rule it is no doubt expedient and wise 

 that the operations of the State and national Govern- 

 ments should, as far as practicable, be conducted sepa- 

 rately, in order to avoid undue jealousies and jars and 

 conflicts of jurisdiction and power. But there is no 

 reason for laying this down as a rule of universal ap- 

 plication. It should never be made to override the 

 plain and manifest dictates of the Constitution itself. 

 We can not yield to such a transcendental view of 

 State sovereignty. The Constitution and laws of the 

 United States are the supreme law of the land, and to 

 these every citizen of every State owes obedience 

 whether in his individual or official capacity. 



" And quoting further from this opinion : 

 "In exercising the power, however, we are bound 

 to presume that Congress has done so in a judicious 

 manner ; that it has endeavored to guard as far as pos- 

 sible against any unnecessary interference with State 

 laws and regulations, with the duties of State officers, 

 or with loctd prejudices. It could not act at all so as 

 to accomplish any beneficial object in preventing 

 frauds and violence, and securing the faithful perform- 

 ance of duty at the elections, without providing for the 

 presence of officers and agents to carry its regulations 

 into effect. It is also difficult to see how it could at- 

 tain these objects without imposing proper sanctions 

 and penalties against offenders. 



" And in another place Justice Bradley, in 

 the opinion, says : 



" Without the concurrent sovereignty referred to, 

 the national Government would be nothing but an 

 advisory government. Its executive power would be 

 absolutely nullified. 



"In speaking of the fair and obvious inter- 

 pretation of the Constitution and the mode of 

 reaching it, the Judge says : 



" We shall not have far to seek. We shall find it 

 on the surface, and not in the profound depths of spec- 

 ulation. 



" The greatest difficulty in coming to a just conclu- 

 sion arises from mistaken notions with regard to the 

 relations which subsist between the State and national 

 Governments. It seems to be often overlooked that a 

 national Constitution has been adopted in this country, 

 establishing a real government therein, operating upon 

 persons, and territory, and things ; and whicirmpre- 

 over is, or should be, as dear to every American citizen 

 as his State government is. Whenever the true con- 

 ception of tlie nature of this Government is once con- 

 ceded, no real difficulty will arise in the just interpre- 

 tation of its powers. But if we allow ourselves to 

 regard it as a hostile organization, opposed to the 

 proper sovereignty and dignity of the State govern- 

 ments, we shall continue to be vexed with difficulties 

 as to its jurisdiction and authority. No greater jeal- 

 ousy is required to be exercised toward this Govern- 

 ment in reference to the preservation of our liberties 

 than is proper to be exercised toward the State govern- 

 ments. Its powers are limited in number and clearly 

 defined, and its action within flie scope of those pow- 

 ers is restrained by a sufficiently rigid bill of rights 

 for the protection of its citizens from oppression. The 

 true interest of the people of this country requires that 

 both the national and State governments ^should be 

 allowed^ without jealous interference on cither side, 

 to exercise all the powers which respectively belong to 



them according to a fair and practical construction of 

 the Constitution. State rights and the rights of the 

 United States should be equally respected. Both are 

 essential to the preservation of our liberties and the 

 perpetuity of our institutions. But, in endeavoring to 

 vindicate the one, we should not allow our zeal to 

 nullify or impair the other. 



" I am tempted to read another extract from 

 this most admirable exposition of the constitu- 

 tional powers of this Government : 



"It is argued that the preservation of peace and 

 good order in society is not within the powers confided 

 to the Government of the United States, but belongs 

 exclusively to the States. Here, again, we are met 

 with the theory that the Government of the United 

 States does not rest upon the soil and territory of the 

 country. We think that this theory is founded on an 

 entire misconception of the nature and powers of that 

 Government. We hold it to be an incontrovertible 

 principle that the Government of the United States 

 may, by means of physical force exercised through its 

 official agents, execute on every foot of American soil 

 the powers and functions that belong to it. This ne- 

 cessarily involves the power to command obedience to 

 its laws, and hence the power to keep the peace to that 

 extent. 



" This power to enforce its laws and to execute its 

 functions in all places does not derogate from the pow- 

 er of the State to execute its laws at the same time and 

 in the same places. The one docs not exclude the 

 other except where both can not be executed at the 

 same time. In that case the words of the Constitution 

 itself show which is to yield. ' This Constitution and 

 all laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof 

 . . . shall be the supreme law of the land.' 



"And still another: 



" Why do we have marshals at all if they can not 

 physically lay their hands on persons and things in 

 the performance of their proper duties 2 What func- 

 tions can they perform, if they can not use force? In 

 executing the process of the courts, must they call on 

 the nearest constable for protection ? must they rely 

 on him to use the requisite compulsion and to keep the 

 peace while they are soliciting and entreating the par- 

 ties and bystanders to allow the law to take its course ? 

 This is the necessary consequence of the positions that 

 are assumed. If we indulge in such impracticable 

 views as these, and keep on refining and re-refining, 

 we shall drive the national Government out of the 

 United States, and relegate it to the District of Colum- 

 bia, or perhaps to some foreign soil. We shall bring 

 it back to a condition of greater helplessness than that 

 of the old Confederation. 



" The argument is based on a strained and imprac- 

 ticable view of the nature and powers of the national 

 Government. It must execute its powers or it is no 

 government. It must execute them on the land as 

 Avcll as on the sea, on things as well as on persons. 

 And, to do this, it must necessarily have power to 

 command obedience, preserve order, and keep the 

 peace ; and no person or power in this land has the 

 right to resist or question its authority so long as it 

 keeps within the bounds of its iurisdiction. Without 

 specifying other instances in which this power to pre- 

 serve order and keep the peace unquestionably exists, 

 take the very case in hand. 



" There are other extracts which might be 

 read to the same effect, but I will not stop to 

 read them now. 



" The power to keep the peace at elections 

 is here expressly recognized, and it is a neces- 

 sary power ; otherwise the foundations of our 

 republic would crumble away. A government 

 without power to protect all of its people from 

 lawlessness and violence at all times and places 

 is unworthy to exist, and of all other times 



