UNITED STATES. 



703 



316,708. In addition to the votes summed up 

 in the table, there were 707 for the American 

 or Autimason ticket, and 989 imperfect and 

 scattering. In Louisiana there were two Gar- 

 field tickets, the "regular" and the "Beattie" 

 ticket. The former received 27,676 and the 

 latter 10,340 votes. In Maine the Hancock 

 vote was cast for a u Fusion " ticket, consisting 

 of four Greenbackers and three Democrats, but 

 there was also a straight Greenback ticket. In 

 Virginia there were two Hancock tickets, that 

 of the regular Democrats and that of the "Re- 

 adjusters." The former received 96,912 and 

 the latter 31,674 votes. 



The electoral votes of the several States were 

 cast on the 6th of December, with the excep- 

 tion of those of Georgia, which, in accordance 

 with a State law, were cast on the second 

 Wednesday of that month. The votes were as 

 follows: 



A decision of the Supreme Court, rendered 

 in March, upholds the constitutionality of the 

 law under which a State Judge may be indicted 

 and punished for excluding colored citizens 

 from jury-lists. The case arose in Virginia, 

 where Judge Rives, of the United States Dis- 

 trict Court, had directed his grand jury to 

 find indictments against State Judges charged 

 with this offense. Judge Coles, of the State 

 Court, who had been indicted and placed un- 

 der arrest, denied the jurisdiction of the Fed- 

 eral Court, and refused to give bail. The case 

 was brought before the Supreme Court, by an 



application for a writ of habeas corpus, with a 

 view to testing the validity of the act of March 

 4, 1879. The Court refused the application, 

 and held that the act under which Judge Coles 

 was indicted was authorized by the thirteenth 

 and fourteenth amendments of the Constitu- 

 tion, Justice Strong delivering the opinion. 

 Justices Clifford and Field dissented, the latter 

 arguing that nothing can be found in the Con- 

 stitution or its amendments which authorizes 

 any interference by Congress with the States 

 in the administration of their government and 

 the enforcement of their laws, with respect to 

 any matter over which jurisdiction was not 

 surrendered to the United States. Nothing, 

 in his judgment, could have a greater tendency 

 to destroy the independence and autonomy of 

 the States, and reduce them to a humiliating 

 and degrading dependence upon the Central 

 Government, engender constant irritation, and 

 destroy that domestic tranquillity which it was 

 one of the objects of the Constitution to insure, 

 than the doctrine asserted in this case that 

 Congress can exercise coercive authority over 

 the judicial officers of the States in the dis- 

 charge of their duties under State laws. It 

 will be only another step in the same direction 

 toward consolidation, when it assumes to exer- 

 cise similar coercive authority over the Gov- 

 ernors and legislators of States. 



Another decision, rendered on the 8th of 

 March, upheld the validity of the Federal elec- 

 tion laws. Certain election officers in Balti- 

 more had been convicted in the United States 

 Circuit Court and imprisoned, for interfering 

 with the Federal supervisors of election and 

 deputy-marshals in the discharge of their du- 

 ties. The case was brought before the Supreme 

 Court by a petition for writs of habeas corpus 

 and certiorari, on the ground that the provision 

 of the Federal election laws, under which the 

 State officers were indicted, were unconstitu- 

 tional. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion 

 of the Court, and held 



1. That the Federal election laws are constitutional 

 and valid. 



2. That Circuit Courts have jurisdiction of indict- 

 ments under these laws. 



3. That, under the Constitution, Congress has su- 

 pervisory power over regulations made by a State for 

 the management of Congressional elections, and may 

 either alter, modify, or add to them entirely new regu- 

 lations. 



4. That in the exercise of such supervisory power 

 Congress may impose new duties on officers of elec- 

 tion, or additional penalties for breach of duty, or pro- 

 vide for the attendance of officers to prevent frauds 

 and see that elections are legally and fairly conducted. 



5. That the exercise of such power can properly 

 cause no collision of regulations or jurisdiction, be- 

 cause the authority of Congress over the subject is 

 paramount and supersedes all inconsistent regulations 

 of a State. 



6. That there is nothing in the relation of the State 

 and national sovereignties to preclude the cooperation 

 of both in the matter of elections of representatives. 



7. That Congress has power, under the Constitu- 

 tion, to vest in "Circuit Courts the appointment of su- 

 pervisors of elections. 



8. That the provision which authorizes deputy-mar- 



