478 



LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL. 



charge of their duties under State laws. It will 

 In only ain't her step in the samedirection to ward 

 consolidation when it assumes to exercise simi- 

 lar coercive authority over (iovcrnors and leg- 

 i.-lators of the BtHtes. . . . Those who regard 

 tin- independence of the States in all their re- 

 served powers and tliis includes the independ- 

 ence of their legislative, judicial, and execu- 

 tive departments as essential to the success- 

 ful maintenance of our form of government, 

 can not fail to view with the gravest apprehen- 

 sion for the future, the indictment in a court 

 of the t'nited States of a judicial officer of a 

 State for the manner in which he has discharged 

 his duties under her laws and of which she 



makes no ( plaint. The proceeding is a gross 



oiTense to the State ; it is an attack upon her 

 sovereignty in matters over which she has nev- 

 er surrendered her jurisdiction. The doctrine 

 which sustains it, carried to its logical results, 

 would degrade and sink her to the level of a 

 mere local municipal corporation; for, if Con- 

 an render the officer of a State crimi- 

 nally liahle for the manner in which he dis- 

 charges his duties under her laws, it can pre- 

 scribe the nature and extent of the penalty to 

 which ho shall he subjected on conviction; it 

 may imprison him for life, or punish him by 

 removal from office ; and, if it can make the 

 exclusion of persons from jury service on ac- 

 count of race or color a criminal offense, it can 

 make their exclusion from office on that ac- 

 count also criminal, and, adopting the doctrine 

 of the district judge in this case, the failure to 

 appoint them to office will be presumptive ev- 

 idence of their exclusion on that ground. To 

 such a result are we logically led. The legisla- 

 tion of Congress is founded and is sustained by 

 this court, as it seems to me, upon a theory as 

 to what constitutes the equal protection of the 

 laws, which is purely speculative, not warrant- 

 ed by an experience of the country, and not in 

 accordance with the understanding of the peo- 

 ple as to the meaning of those terms since the 

 organization of the Government." (Ex parte 

 Virginia, 100 U. S. Eeports, 358, 369, 370.) 



In the subsequent cases of Siebold and Clarke 

 (100 United States Reports, 371, 399) the court 

 affirmed the doctrine that in the case of an 

 election at which members of Congress are 

 voted for, although State officers may also be 

 then chosen, Congress has the constitutional 

 power to pass an act for the punishment of a 

 State election officer for failing to perform his 

 duty under a State election law, or otherwise 

 violating that law in any matter affecting the 

 election of representatives in Congress. The 

 question arose under section 5515 of the Re- 

 vised Statutes of the United States, which was 

 originally enacted in 1870 in the Enforcement 

 Act, whose declared purpose was "to enforce 

 the right of citizens of the United States to vote 

 in the several States of this Union." It pro- 

 vides that " every officer of an election at which 

 any representative or delegate in Congress is 

 voted for, whether such officer of election be 



appointed or created by or under any law or 

 authority of the United States, or by or under 

 any State, Territorial, district, or municipal 

 law or authority, who neglects or refuses to 

 perform any duty in regard to such election 

 required of him by any law of the United States, 

 or of any State or Territory thereof, or who 

 violates any duty so imposed," shall be pun- 

 ished by tine or imprisonment, or both, as pre- 

 scribed by the act of Congress. Under this law 

 Clarke, a State election officer at an election 

 held in Cincinnati, at which both members of 

 Congress and State officers were chosen, was 

 convicted in the United States Circuit Court 

 for violating a law of Ohio by not conveying 

 the ballot-box, after it had been sealed up and 

 delivered to him for that purpose, to the coun- 

 ty clerk, and for allowing it to be broken open. 

 It was contended in his behalf that the act of 

 Congress was unconstitutional for the reason 

 that that body had no power to punish a State 

 officer for the violation of a State law. The 

 Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of 

 the legislation under that clause of the Consti- 

 tution which provides that " the times, places, 

 and manner of holding elections for senators 

 and representatives shall be prescribed in each 

 State by the Legislature thereof, but the Con- 

 gress may, at any time, by law make or alter 

 such regulations, except as to the place of 

 choosing senators." The following passage 

 from the opinion delivered by Justice Bradley 

 shows the views of the court on this point : 



It is objected that Congress has no power to enforce 

 State laws or to punish State officers, and especially 

 has no power to punish them for violating the laws of 

 their own State. As a general proposition, this is 

 undoubtedly true ; but when, in the performance of 

 their functions, State officers are called upon to fulfill 

 duties which they owe to the United States as well as 

 to the State, has the former no means of compelling 

 such fulfillment I Yet such is the case here. It is the 

 duty of the States to elect representatives to Congress. 

 The due and fair election of these representatives is of 

 vital importance to the United States ; the Government 

 of the United States is no less concerned in the trans- 

 action than the State government is. It certainly is not 

 bound to stand by as a passive spectator when duties 

 are violated and outrageous frauds are committed. It 

 is directly interested in the faithful performance by 

 the officers of election of their respective duties. Those 

 duties are owed as well to the United States as to the 

 States. This necessarily follows from the mixed char- 

 acter of the transaction State and national. A viola- 

 tion of duty is an offense against the United States, for 

 which the offender is justly amenable to the Govern- 

 ment. No official position can shelter him from this 

 responsibility. In view of the fact that Congress has 

 plenary and paramount jurisdiction over the whole 

 subject, it seems almost absurd to say that an officer 

 who receives or has custody of the ballots given for a 

 representative owes no duty to the national Govern- 

 ment which Congress can enforce ; or that an officer 

 who stuffs the ballot-box can not be made amenable to 

 the United States. If Congress has not, prior to the 

 passage of the present laws, imposed any penalties to 

 prevent and punish frauds and violations of duties com- 

 mitted by officers of election, it has been because the 

 exigency 'has not been deemed sufficient to require it, 

 and not because Congress had not the requisite power. 



The objection that the laws and regulations, the 

 violations of which are punishable by the acts of Con- 

 gress, are State laws, and have not been adopted by 



