Mr. MORTON. I call for the regular order. Mr. SCOTT. I was going to say that I will not embarrass the Senator from Indiana by having my request before him. This bill was reported the other morning, and under unusual circumstances, and objection was made to it. It is of a class to which objection is hardly ever made; but I will not put my friend from Indiana in the position of being compelled to object. I withdraw the request. The VICE PRESIDENT. The request is withdrawn, and the amendatory enforcement bill is before the Senate.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had concurred in the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 2616) authorizing the erection of a public building in Rockland, Maine.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

The message also announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the following enrolled bills; and they were thereupon signed by the Vice President:

A bill (S. No. 309) to prohibit the retention of soldiers' discharges by claim agents and attorneys;

A bill (S. No. 446) to amend an act entitled "An act to establish and to protect national cemeteries," approved February 22, 1867;

A bill (S. No. 354) relating to the Reform School of the District of Columbia;

A bill (S. No. 609) to reduce the limits of the military reservation at Fort Stanton, New Mexico;

A bill (H. R. No. 1055) to regulate the salary of the consul at Tien-Tsin, China;

A bill (H. R. No. 2616) authorizing the erection of a public building in Rockland, Maine;

A bill (H. R. No. 2627) to enable the city of Denver to purchase certain lands in Colo rado for a cemetery; and

A bill (H. R. No. 2567) to authorize the issue of a supply of arms to the authorities of the Territory of Montana.

AMENDATORY ENFORCEMENT ACT.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole. resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 791) to amend an act entitled "An act to amend an act approved May 31, 1870, entitled "An act to enforce the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of the Union, and for other purposes.'

Mr. WRIGHT. I desire to call the attention of the chairman of the committee who reported this bill, and of the Senate also, to the first section which was under consideration at the adjournment yesterday, and to what was supposed to be a correction of a possible error in the language as found in the section itself. It occurs to me that the difficulty suggested was not remedied by the amendment made, and therefore I call the attention of the chairman and of the Senate to it. For the most part I may say that I am entirely satisfied with the bill, and I only desire to correct it and make it as perfect as possible.

Now, I understand that so far as the provisions of this bill are concerned it is the intention of the bill to confer power on the Federal judges to appoint these supervisors in the several election districts and precincts; that is to say, their power is invoked and action is taken when application is made by two citizens of any congressional district. But am I to understand that when this application is made by any two citizens of a congressional district then the power obtains to appoint in all the election districts and precincts whether application is made from such precincts and districts or not? That is the inquiry I suggest to the chairman.

Mr. MORTON. According to the con

struction which was yesterday given to the section, commencing in line twenty-three:

And the said court, when so opened by said judge, shall proceed to appoint and commission, from day to day and from time to time, and under the hand of the said circuit judge and under the seal of said court for each district or voting precinct in said congressional district as shall in the manner herein prescribed have applied therefor.

I believe there was some verbal amendment made.

Mr. WRIGHT. That was to change "each" to "such;" so as to read "for such district or voting precinct.' The criticism I submit to the chairman is this: that the only "manner herein described" is found in the first line of the section of the amendment:

That whenever, in any congressional district, there shall be two citizens thereof who shall, &c.

And as it stands now, if you leave it as it is, whenever application is made by any two citi zens of a congressional district, it shall be the duty of the judge to appoint an election supervisor in each election precinct or district. I suggest to him, therefore, whether it would not be better to strike out the words "in the manner herein prescribed," because they refer to what precedes, and there is no other " manner herein prescribed," except as I have suggested, where the application is made by two citizens of a congressional district.

Mr. MORTON. I understand the effect of the section as now amended to be this: whenever any two citizens of a congressional district shall make this request in writing to the circuit judge, the court shall be opened, and thereupon he shall appoint two citizens of opposite parties in each election district where they ask it.

Mr. WRIGHT. That is exactly what I understand it to mean; but as it stands now it is not necessary that it should be asked by the citizens of the voting precincts or district in order to appoint, but the power is given to appoint whether it is asked or not for that particular precinct or district. There is no doubt but that I am right on that subject. Now, I suggest to the chairman that he strike out the words "in the nanner herein prescribed," and insert by two citizens thereof."

66

Mr. HAMILTON, of Maryland. I suggest to the Senator from Iowa whether this amendment would not answer the purpose: ..that whenever in any election precinct or voting district in any congressional district there shall be two citizens thereof," &c.?

Mr. WRIGHT. How is that? Mr. HAMILTON, of Maryland. I suggest in the first line on the second page to incorporate an amendment, so as to make it read:

That whenever in any election precinct or voting district in any congressional district there shall be two citizens thereof," &c.

That will make it sufficiently distinct, I think, and accomplish the object of both the gentlemen and myself.

Mr. WRIGHT. I do not know but that would be sufficient. I am very sure that something of that kind ought to be done, and I think the chairman of the committee will see the necessity of it when he comes to look at the language. I understand that there is no such intention. It is not contemplated that there shall be an appointment of a supervisor in an election district or precinct unless it is asked for in that district or precinct. A request from two citizens of a congressional district is necessary in order to set the machinery of the law in operation, and when you get the machinery in operation, then the judge appoints in such districts or precincts as ask it, and not in those that do not ask it. Mr. MORTON. Yes sir.

Mr. WRIGHT. I am very certain as the bill stands, with the words "in the manner herein prescribed," it will make it his duty to appoint in the various precincts, when the power is once invoked, whether it is asked by all the precincts or not. In order to get the question before the Senate I move to strike

out in line twenty-eight the words "in the manner herein prescribed" and insert "by two citizens thereof;" and then it will read:

For each district or voting precinct in said congressional district as shall, by two citizens thereof, have applied therefor.

Mr. MORTON. I think that would be an improvement. I am willing to accept the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. CARPENTER in the chair.) The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Iowa.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. THURMAN. I suggest that in that same line the words "district or" before "voting" might as well be stricken out so as to read "for each voting precinct in said congressional district." The word "district" has really no proper meaning there as the section is now framed, and might lead to some misconstruction or ambiguity. I move to strike out the words" district or;" so as to read, "for each voting precinct in said congressional district."'

Mr. SCOTT. I hope that will not be done, for the reason that in some of the States, I know it is so in mine, the territorial divisions in which the elections are held are in the law called "election districts" and not "voting precincts." It is a mere name.

Mr. MORTON. Insert voting" before "districts."

Mr. SCOTT. Insert "election" before "district."

Mr. EDMUNDS. That will do.

Mr. THURMAN. I move to insert the word "election;" so as to read, "for each election district or voting precinct."

Mr. CASSERLY. The same thing should be done in line thirty-one.

Mr. THURMAN. Yes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Ohio is in line twentyseven and line thirty-one to insert before the word "district" in each line the word "election."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CASSERLY. The amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa, [Mr. WRIGHT] and adopted by the Senate, meets in part the ob jection which I suggested yesterday in a few remarks. Therefore I shall not act upon the matter, so far as I am concerned, further.

Mr. HAMILTON, of Maryland. On page 2, line eleven of section one, I move to strike out the word "two" and insert "ten;" so as to read:

That whenever, in any congressional district. there shall be ten citizens thereof who, prior to any registration of voters, &c.

I think that in a matter of that kind, which is to call upon the power of the Federal Government to interfere in our local election matters (for most of the elections are held on the days appointed for electing members of Congress) the application ought to have the sanction of at least ten citizens. You will have in every district persons desiring to avoid responsibility who would bring upon you all kinds of officers to administer the laws, if you leave it to two persons of irresponsible character unknown to the judge. As I understand the frame of this bill as it stands-it may be altered when we get into the Senate-it proposes that the circuit judge shall appoint these supervisors. Where does the circuit judge live, and what does he know about these people? Two unworthy citizens of a district may not only call for the exercise of this great Federal power, but may also make a recommendation of the very persons to act as supervisors, and I think really that there ought to be ten citizens in good standing in the district required at all events.

Mr. MORTON. As the clause which the Senator proposes to amend is the one that makes it obligatory upon the court, I see no objection to the adoption of the amendment. If there is an emergency and a probable cou

dition to require this, there will be no difficulty in getting ten citizens to apply, and if it will make the bill more acceptable, I see no objec tion, so far as I am concerned, to making it "ten" instead of "two."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Maryland.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HAMILTON, of Maryland. I move to insert the words "of good standing" after the word citizens."

ស

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The committee reported an amendment striking out "circuit" and inserting "district,” and it was not agreed to. I wish to call the attention of the Senator from Indiana now to the condition in which the bill is left. I was a little surprised that the Senate did not agree to that recommendation of the committee. It seems to me it could not have been considered. We have but one circuit judge in a circuit. Take for example the southern circuit, of which Judge Woods is the judge. I think his residence is in Alabama. That circuit extends from Texas to Florida. Florida and Texas are both in the circuit of which Judge Woods is the judge, who resides somewhere in Alabama. Sup pose they want these supervisors in Florida; it is utterly impossible to get at the judge in Alabama. Suppose they want them in Texas. Take another case in the West, with which the Senator and I are familiar; take the circuit that embraces Michigan. The judge of that circuit resides, I think, at Detroit-Judge Emmons. Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee are all in that judicial circuit. Suppose at an election in Nashville it should be thought necessary to have supervisors appointed.

Judge Emmons lives in Detroit. Suppose at an election in Memphis, or some other large city, to which the law originally applied, it should be desirable to have two inspectors or supervisors appointed, you have to apply to this judge whose home is Detroit, or if he should happen to be at the time down in Tennessee holding court at Memphis, then how could you apply to him for supervisors in Detroit?

The suggestion which was made by the present occupant of the chair [Mr. CARPENTER] that the circuit judge could designate a district judge to act for him does not fully meet the case; that is a very limited designa tion. I see on looking at the original law the third section of it provides:

"That whenever, from sickness, injury, or otherwise, the judge of the circuit court of the United States in any judicial circuit shall be unable to perform and discharge the duties by this act imposed, it shall be his duty, and he is hereby required, to select and to direct and assign to the performance thereof, in his place and stead. such one of the judges of the district courts of the United States within his circuit as he shall deem best; and upon such selection and assignment being made, it shall be lawful for, and shall be the duty of the district judge so designated to perform and discharge, in the place and stead of the said circuit judge, all the duties, powers, and obligations imposed and conferred upon the said circuit judge by the provisions of this act."

So that the Senate will see he can only designate one district judge. That does not help it at all. You would not have but one, then; and it would not make any difference whether you had the circuit judge to perform the duties or a district judge, in case of his sickness or disability to act; it is still one judge in a region of country extending nearly a thousand miles in the southern circuit. The law is utterly inoperative; you cannot avail yourself of it. Suppose supervisors were wanted at Galveston, in Texas, it would not be known until probably a few days before the election took place whether there would be any occasion for these supervisors, and if it was supposed there was likely to be trouble at the election in Galveston, Texas, how in the world are they going to apply to the circuit judge to have these persons appointed?

The object of the law is to have a fair elec

tion. That is the intent of it, of course. The machinery of it ought to be so arranged as to enable the people to take the advantage of it. If it is to serve any good purpose, it seems to me that it would have been greatly better to have adopted those amendments of the committee.

I do not know what answer there is to the suggestions I have made. I have taken very little part in reference to the bill; but if the bill is to pass, it seems to me it should be such a one as will be practical in its operations, and such a one as the people can avail themselves of; for I can readily see, and every Senator will see that this bill would be almost nugatory if you confined this power to a single person in so large a district of country as one of the judicial circuits of the United States. It would be impracticable, and I may say it would be impossible, for ten citizens or two citizens, whichever it now is, to make this application to the judge-utterly out of the question. It would be a bill that you could not carry out generally throughout the circuits.

Mr. MORTON. The third section of the law to which this bill is an amendment provides that

"Whenever, from sickness, injury, or otherwise, the judge of the circuit court of the United States in any judicial circuit shall be unable to perform and discharge the duties by this act imposed, it shall be his duty, and he is hereby required, to select and to direct and assign to the performance thereof, in his place and stead, such one of the judges of the district courts of the United States, within his circuit, as he shall deem best."

This provides expressly for the difficulty suggested by the Senator from Illinois. He, however, intimates that there may be an obscurity in the construction of this third section; that the circuit judge can select but one district judge to perform his duties in case he is not able to do so. If there be an obscurity on that subject I will endeavor to correct it by offering as an amendment that he shall be authorized to appoint one or more district judges to perform the duties that he is unable to perform.

Mr. TRUMBULL. While the Senator is preparing that amendment, I would suggest to him that that would have to be done in advance; and as it has to be done in advance, why would it not be better for the law to fix it at once, and let the district judges do it, because there will be no time to do it after the application is made in such districts as I have suggested. Clearly the law, as the Senator sees if he will look at it, confines it to one district judge. The circuit judge may merely substitute a district judge in his place. I do not see what possible objection there can be to adopting the committee's amendment, and why it would not be better just at once to authorize each district judge to do this, or each district judge in the absence of the circuit judge if you please, so that in case the circuit judge was not there he could do it. I think it would be better to do this than to amend in the way the Senator proposes. However, I have made all the suggestions I propose to make in regard to it.

Mr. BOREMAN. These officers, if they may be so called, are appointed upon recommendation, I apprehend, or will be in most instances, not upon the personal knowledge of the judge; and it may be well perhaps to have a judge as far removed as possible from the local influences that may operate in regard to these elections; and that consideration, no doubt, had its weight upon the mind of the original draftsman of the bill. The circuit judge is accessible within any reasonable time preceding the election. I apprehend that in every case where it will be necessary to have officers of the character described in this bill, it will be known in a due time in advance sufficiently so as to get to the circuit judge any. where within the circuit; so that no detriment will result from that cause on account of his distance from the point at which the appointment of supervisors may be desired.

Mr. CASSERLY. I regret that the Senator from West Virginia should oppose placing this power, given in the first section of the bill, in the hands of the district judges rather than in those of the circuit judges. He thinks no inconvenience can arise by reason of the distance or the difficulty of bringing to the information of the circuit judge the qualification of the parties to be appointed.

The circuit in which I live on the Pacific coast is nine hundred miles long, and a large part of it from six to seven hundred miles wide. It is simply out of the question to say that in a circuit of that extent, comprising so many remote, outlying precincts, the circuit judge can know anything in the world of the large number of persons with whom he will have to deal in the way of appointment. In the same circuit we have three district judges, and as it so happens all of them old residents, all of them I may say-although I am almost ashamed to speak of such a thing-members of the Administration party. They are really the persons who are best fitted, from their knowledge, from their long residence in the localities in which they live, to deal with the subject of these appointments. I am quite certain that in such a circuit as that which we have on our coast (and I believe there are others not quite so large, but still large and extensive in the number of States which they embrace and in the number of remote precincts which they include) it will be impracticable for the circuit judge to exercise these powers in such a manner as to do justice to the subject and carry out the design of the law. I really think that imposing this function on him is practically to defeat the very proper words previously inserted, "ten persons of good standing." To call upon the circuit judges, in addition to all their other business, to examine into the qualifications of so many persons as there must be in a circuit of the size of ours before making the appointments, will result in three fourths of the cases in the appointments being made without any reliable information whatever. It is an embarrassment really to which we ought not to subject the circuit judge.

Mr. BOREMAN. The Senator probably did not hear the suggestion I made, that in most instances these persons would be appointed on the recommendation of others; not on personal knowledge even by the district judge if he were vested with the power. Mr. CASSERLY. What knowledge will

the circuit judge have of those who recommend? He will not have any. I know that in our circuit it is simply inadmissible to say that the circuit judge can discharge the function imposed upon him with any intelligence whatever in a large number of cases; and what will happen? The thing will happen which it is alleged happened in New Yorkmost unfit and in many cases most disgraceful persons will be imposed upon the circuit judge. I am sure that is not the purpose of this bill, nor the object of any Senator. It seems to me there is no way to avoid that, and to allow the appointing power to act intelligently, and, therefore, fitly in this matter, except by leaving the appointment to the district judges.

Mr. MORTON. In order to meet the objection raised by the Senator fom Illinois and the Senator from California, and to remove any obscurity in the third section of the law of 1871, I offer the following amendment as an additional section to this bill:

That the third section of the act to which this is an amendment be so amended as to authorize each judge of the circuit court of the United States to appoint one or more of the judges of the district courts of the United States within his circuit to discharge the duties contemplated by this act and the one to which it is an amendment.

Mr. HAMILTON, of Maryland. That still does not obviate the difficulty, in my judg ment. The honorable Senator from West Virginia and myself live in the same judicial cir

I

We

We

is to be put on concurring in the other amend

ments.

Mr. CASSERLY. Because the amendment of the Senator from Indiana necessarily should go with the other amendments.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is reserved with the others.

Mr. KELLOGG. I discover on examining the bill as it is reported from the Committee of the Whole that an amendment which I had given notice of some time since, under date of May 6, and which has been printed for some days, was not moved as I intended to move it. I desire to move it in the Senate. I ask the Secretary to read it, and then I will state

cuit. Our judicial circuit comprises the States of Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The circuit judge resides in Baltimore. We have in this judicial circuit a great many large towns. suppose this power will hardly be called upon to be exercised except in large towns. have Baltimore, Frederick, and Cumberland, in my State, and Wheeling in his State. have large towns in Virginia, like Richmond and Norfolk. Now the thing is to get at the appointment of the proper men. They are to he selected ten days before the election or registration, in order that knowledge may go to the people; but how are they to communicate with the judge? The judge may be in the State of North Carolina; he may not deem it proper or expedient even to designate the disproposed by the Senator from Indiana adopted trict judges to act for him, and if he did, when the people know it it may be too late to make application. He may be away down in the State of North Carolina, and he has made his appointments for Maryland; or he may be in Maryland and has made his appointments for the interior of North Carolina or South Carolina, or for both States together, and he may have made very objectionable appointments. The people have no opportunity to go to Baltimore to see him; they have no mode of redress in order to secure better appointments.

I presume if we are to have good appointments, knowledge ought to be given to the people of them. These men are to be appointed ten days before registration or election. For that purpose they are to be recommended by individuals who are not known to the judge, and the judge desiring to discharge his duty, will wish to be informed as to them. I can see no objection to giving the power at once to the district judges, because if they are at home we can communicate with them daily, almost hourly, by means of the railroad communication; but at far distant point sit will be utterly impracticable to communicate with the circuit judges. This amendment does not remedy that. It may remedy other matters.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Indiana.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on concurring in the amendments made in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I wish to except the amendment just adopted by the Senator from Indiana [Mr. MORTON] for a moment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. CARPENTER.) The Senator from Illinois saves the last amendment offered.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to submit the question in some form to the Senate on adopting the bill as the committee first reported it, giving this power to the district judges. I do not know how I can get at that. Mr. THURMAN. It is perfectly in order for the Senator to move to amend the bill in the Senate, as I understand it. He can move again that amendment which was disagreed to in committee.

Mr. TRUMBULL. But if we adopt this it would be incongruous. I only wish to get at a vote. Perhaps the Senator from Indiana will consent to withhold this amendment until we take a vote in the Senate on leaving these appointments to the district judges.

Mr. MORTON. I have no objection to that. Mr. TRUMBULL. Let all the amendments to the first section be reserved.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be done.

Mr. CASSERLY. Is there any under standing about the amendments? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The understanding of the Chair is that the amendments to the first section and the amendment just adopted on the motion of the Senator from Indiana have been reserved, and the question

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amend ments to the first section and the amendment

in Committee of the Whole being reserved, the question is on concurring in the other amendments made as in Committee of the Whole. The amendments were concurred in.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Now, with a view to getting at the direct question, I move to strike out the word "circuit" and insert the word "district," just as the Committee on Priv ileges and Elections originally reported it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois moves to strike out the word "circuit" and insert the word "district" before "judge," wherever the latter word occurs in the first section of this bill.

Mr. MORTON. I have simply to say that upon reflection and further consideration I hope that the change proposed by the Senator from Illinois will not be adopted.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. BOREMAN called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

Mr. CASSERLY. There are sixty or seventy district judges, all of them, of course, appointed for their ability and integrity. There are nine circuit judges, of whom I do not wish to say anything different. The great question is, when you are dealing with a body of appointments so great as that provided for by this bill, amounting to, I will say, speaking now within limits, (of course a great deal by guesswork) not less than six or seven thousand men, taking the whole country through, whether you will give the power to appoint that great number of officers to sixty or seventy men or to nine? It is a question whether the nine men could have the time, the information, or the opportunity in any shape to make these appointments as efficiently as the sixty or seventy district judges. It is an enormous addition to the labor and responsibilities already imposed upon your circuit judges.

Mr. MORTON. I desire to say but one word. The object is to give to this law as high a character and inspire as much confi. dence on the part of the country as may be possible. I think it important, therefore, for these considerations, that in the States where the circuit judges live they ought to perform these duties, and perhaps in other States; and the provision that has just been adopted enables them by calling upon the district judges to require them to perform the duties where they themselves cannot. It seems to me there can be no objection to the bill as it now stands in this respect.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think it is better to repose this power in the circuit judges, because they generally would naturally be expected to be a rather higher class of men than the district judges. I reported a bill at this session from the Judiciary Committee amending the existing law, which I think passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously, which imposed this duty upon the circuit judges, just as the bill here does, giving the circuit judge the power to name a district judge to discharge the duty. That was a supplement to the original bill, and I supposed the original bill which applied to towns

of twenty thousand inhabitants, when it passed the Judiciary Committee, met with the approval of that committee; and in that bill this duty was imposed on the circuit judges, instead of on the district judges, so that this distinction has twice had the approval of the Senate and of the Judiciary Committee. I hope, therefore, that we shall not change the law at this time.

Mr. THURMAN. If the circuit judge makes these appointments, it is very obvious that be must make them upon the representations of some other person or persons. He cannot have personal knowledge in respect to every election precinct in the three or four States composing his circuit. Indeed, the district judge cannot have that personal knowledge in respect to a great many precincts in his district, although that is usually only about the half of a State; and yet the district judge will have much greater personal knowledge than the circuit judge can have; and the district judge will also have more knowledge of the persons who recommend individuals to him for appointment, a much better knowlege than the circuit judge can have.

To say, then, that the circuit judge shall make these appointments, because he is a a more independent judge or because he is not under any particular local influence, is no answer at all, for he will not make them upon his own knowledge of the men, he must make them upon the recommendations of some person to him, and we know what these recom. mendations will generally be. The appoint ment may be made at any time so that it is ten days before the election. He has no time whatever, then, to make inquiry. It is peremptorily made his duty to make the appointment if the application is made to him ten days before the election. He then has not an hour to make the selections, not one hour to make any inquiry as to who shall be the persons who shall act as supervisors, but in nine cases out of ten he must take the very men as supervisors who may be recommended to him by the persons who ask for their appointment. That will be the case in nine cases out of ten, perhaps ninety-nine times out of a hundred. So that in point of fact it will not be the circuit judge who makes the appointment, but it will be the ten citizens who ask for the appointment, who will at the same time require the appointment and name the men who shall be appointed. That, practically, will be the operation of the whole thing. If, however, you left it to the district judge, he would have some knowledge of the men who asked for the appointment, some knowledge of the value of their recommenda tion, and over a large part of the district he would have some knowledge of the persons living in the election precincts; but by leav ing this to the circuit judge you make it, practically, absolutely necessary for him to appoint the men who are dictated to him by the persons who demand the appointment.

Take the case, for instance, of Judge Emmons, in Detroit. He is there, and he is asked to make appointments in Tennessee; he is asked to do it ten days before the election. A paper is presented to him signed by ten men, citizens in an election precinct, asking him to appoint two supervisors for that precinct. He says "I do not know two men in the precinct; I do not know anybody who does know a man in the precinct." What then must he do? The law is mandatory; he shall make the appointment. He has no discretion; he must make it. How then can he get two names out of that precinct except from the men who present to him at Detroit the paper demanding their appointment? The consequences of the law as it now stands, therefore, is simply this: that the men who demand the appointment also make the appointment. That is the fact.

What reason is given for that? There is no reason in the world given for it other than

this: that it is supposed the circuit judge will be more independent of local influences than the district judge. Why, sir, if you are to devolve this power on a judicial officer at all, can you devolve it more safely upon any one than the district judge, who holds his office for life, and who is supposed to be removed from any such local influences? If the district judge is not competent, by preju dice or passion or local influence, to appoint a supervisor of an election, I pray you, how is be competent or fit to hold the office of district judge at all? Is he fit to administer justice there if he is so subject to local influences? Is he fit to try the prosecutions that may arise under this very law? Yet most of them are to be tried by this very same district judge, whom you remove and set aside upon the idea that he is the victim of or subject to local influences, and that therefore it is necessary to go seven or eight hundred miles to find a man who is not subject to local influ

ences.

Then here again is the inconsistency of the thing, that the circuit judge is to appoint them in the State in which he lives where the same local influences that would bear upon the district judge would bear upon him.

I say, Mr. President, if this bill is to pass at all, and if it is to be anything like a fair bill, to accomplish the purposes that are professed, the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois ought to prevail.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am surprised that the Senator from Ohio should question the fairness of this bill because it names the circuit judge instead of the district judge, when he has once, if not twice, had such a bill pass under his supervision in the Judiciary Committee without raising that objection.

Mr. THURMAN. Because I was opposed to the bill out and out and opposed it in com. mittee, if I may be allowed to say that, as the Senator refers to committee matters, which he ought not to have done, and I opposed it in this Senate until the Senate got very tired of hearing me.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do not think there was any opposition made in the Senate to the passage of the bill to which I refer at all; certainly none on the ground that it named the circuit judge instead of the district judge, and it passed at this session.

Mr. THURMAN. To what bill does the Senator refer?

Mr. FRELINHUYSEN. The amendment to the original act.

Mr. THURMAN. The Senator knows I was opposed to that bill.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I say no objection was made to it in the Senate, and no objection anywhere on account of the circuit judge. All the argument that the Senator uses against the circuit judges applies equally against the district judges; and we are going to select one or the other. As to the circuit judge being under the imperative necessity of appointing just who the citizens call upon him to appoint, that applies to the district judge just as well. A circuit judge who wants to perform his duty will see that he is not placed in any such strait; and that is a matter which any number of citizens can in time prevent by making application twenty or thirty days before the time the appointment is to be made, so as to leave abundant time to make this investigation. It is perfectly apparent that these circuit judges, if we are going to impose an important trust, are, as a general rule, without saying anything to the disparagement of the district judges, better

entitled to this trust.

Mr. CASSERLY. Will the Senator allow me?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Certainly. Mr. CASSERLY. I wish he would state, because I intend to say something about that point, upon what grounds he regards the cir

son with any circuit judge in the United States to-day. Two of them are judges of long service; one of them has gone through an ordeal that few judges could have gone through and come out of it not only with reputation undiminished, but greatly increased for every quality which a judge should have. I draw no invidious distinctions between him or any other of the district judges on that coast and the circuit judge. The circuit judge is a gentleman of standing, and of credit, and of

Mr. CASSERLY. So far as the main question is concerned, I do not propose to discuss it further. I wish to say a few words, however, in regard to the ground assumed by the Senator from New Jersey who has just sat down. He said awhile ago, as his reason for wishing this power in the hands of the circuit judges, that they were generally a better class of men. Just now when I challenged his attention to the point he put it on the ground that they were a higher class of officers.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If I spoke of the men it was a slip of the tongue, for I do not know the character of the men. I should be very sorry to be represented as speaking to the disparagement of the district judges or the circuit judges as men, and I trust the Senator from California will not so represent me.

Mr. CASSERLY. I do not know what the Senator means by trusting that I will not so represent him, because I used his express language. Now, if the Senator wishes to qualify that, I of course shall not object. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I stated what I meant by saying that if I used that expression it was a slip of the tongue.

Mr. CASSERLY. I trust the Senator understands me. So far as that is concerned, his explanation closes my mouth. Still I repeat I do not know why the Senator should express a hope that I would not so represent him, to use his own language, when, of course, if the Senator in the haste of debate used any language which he wishes to recall or to qualify he will meet from no one a more cheerful assent than he will from me. It seemed to me, however, that there was an implication, an undertone running through this debate, as though the circuit judges were by reason of their personal qualifications better fitted to perform this duty than the district judges.

Now, sir, it has been my fortune during the many years of my practice at the bar to know something of the circuit judges and the district judges in this country, either by my prac tice before them or by my examination of their decisions. I do not think it can be said with justice by any one that the district judges as a body will suffer by comparison with the circuit judges as a body. Some of the most illustrious names that we have in our jurisprudence are the names of district judges. In admiralty they hold almost undisturbed supremacy. I have only to speak of such names as Sprague of Massachusets, of Lowell, his successor, of Ingersoll in Connecticut, of Betts in New York, of Smalley in Vermontall of them men whose memories will always live in the hearts of the profession for their learning, for their ability, for their spotless integrity. On my own coast it may be that we are fortunate-I think not more fortunate than our fellow-citizens are elsewhere--but we have three district judges there, with regard to two of whom I speak from personal knowledge, and I believe I may include the third in what I am going to say. They are gentlemen who would not suffer by compari-l

take to depreciate, by comparison with him, any of the three district judges in his circuit.

There is nothing in the idea of personal unfitness on the part of the district judges as compared with the circuit judges for the discharge of the trust imposed on them by this act; and if you speak of long tenure of office, and of great experience, and of intimate acquaintance with the best people, with the good men and true, the lawful and discreet citizens of the States in which they administer justice, the district judges are immeasurably beyond the circuit judges in the advantages which they possess. Your circuit judges are, many of them, if not most of them, of new creation. Many of the district judges have been in office for a quarter of a century, and have always borne themselves so clear in their high office that no touch even of the most reckless slander has ever reached them.

I shall regret the adoption of the amendment as amended in the committee, for the reason that it will exclude precisely that class of judges who are preeminently qualified beyond any doubt or fair comparison to discharge the duties imposed upon the circuit judges by this bill.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I did not intend to say anything more about this question. I shall enter into no comparison between the judges of the circuit and of the district courts. I assume, Mr. President, that the judges of the circuit court and the judges of the district courts are both of too high character to do anything but what would be right in the selection of two supervisors or inspectors, one from each party, to see that an election is conducted fairly. I take it that we may trust both of them or either of them; it is a mere question of convenience.

It has been thought by Congress advisable to take to some extent the supervision of the election of members of Congress. And in doing that we have passed a law by which we proposed originally to appoint these supervisors only in the large cities. The Senator from New Jersey says we confined the appointment to the circuit judges. There might have been more propriety for it then. It was only in cities, I think, containing more than twenty thousand inhabitants, that any provision was originally made for appointing these inspectors, and of course there were but few such cities in a circuit. Now it is proposed to extend the law so as to authorize the appointment of inspectors in every precinct in the United States when a congressional election takes places, and it is proposed to confine the appointment of the se inspectors, one of each party in those precincts, to the judge of the circuit court. There is but one judge of the circuit court in a circuit. These circuits consist of many States, all of them of several States.

As I have already stated, the southern circuit extends from Texas to Florida. It takes in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Now, suppose in the remote part of Texas it is thought by some of the citizens there that they will not have a fair election; they desire to apply to the judge for the purpose of having two impartial persons appointed, one of each party, to supervise this election in the western part of Texas; they are required to go to Judge Woods, resid.

ing in Alabama, with their application ten days before the election takes place. Does not every one see the inconvenience of that? If you propose to pass a law that is to have any practical effect you must adopt such machinery as can be used; and I assume that either of the district judges in Texas-they have two there now, one of whom has just been appointed in his district-if applied to by the citizens of any precinct in that State would appoint proper persons, and would be quite as likely to appoint proper persons as Judge Woods would be up in Alabama, who would only know what was told him by the applicants. He could have no personal knowledge of the different precincts. Just so in Florida; just so in the State of Tennessee.

The State of Tennessee and the State of Michigan are both in the same judicial circuit. Now, away up, if you please, on the mountains of Tennessee, at Chattanooga, or at Knoxville, where Judge Emmons never goes, never holds a court, and where he knows nobody, it is thought by the citizens ten days prior to the election that it will be proper that they should apply to have these two officers appointed by the United States to supervise the election of Congressmen. How are they going to get it done? They must go to Detroit and make the application. It seems to me this would be an inconvenience that would render the law almost nugatory when you come to extend it to all the precincts of the country; and so it seemed to me, and so it seemed to the committee, because the committee so reported the bill, you should allow the district judges to make these appointments. There is something about it that we do not understand. What is it? Is there a distrust of some district judge; and if so, who is it?

Mr. KELLOGG. Will my friend allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly.

Mr. KELLOGG. I desire to inquire from what committee the original law, the law to which the pending bill is an amendment, was reported?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I think it came from the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. KELLOGG. I see that the original law is precisely like the second section as it stands now without the amendment proposed by the Senator from Illinois, and I was informed by a member hearing it discussed very much in the Senate that it was regarded as a masterpiece of ingenuity, and not prepared with a view to the predilections or interest of any party. It was declared, I believe, to be fairly drawn, and was universally conceded to be drawn with a great deal of fairness and legal acumen, and with a great deal of care.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not know who drafted the bill; but if the Senator had been noticing my remarks he would have observed that I had stated that that law only applied to cities of twenty thousand inhabitants and upward, of which there are but few in a judicial circuit, and the judge of the circuit court could better supervise the few cities in his circuit than he can all the precincts through half a dozen States; and while the circuit judge might perform this duty for cities of twenty thousand inhabitants, it would be much more difficult to perform it for a thousand precincts, and there will be at least that number, and probably five thousand in some of the circuits. I supposed the Senator from Louisiana would have been able to see that distinction without calling my attention to the original law as militating at all against the observations I was making.

Now, Mr. President, I suppose there must be somewhere, but I do not know who it is, some judge whom it is supposed it will not do to trust to appoint these persons-I do not know what else this can amount to-and who that judge is I do not know. I presume this

law is supposed to be chiefly desirable in the southern States, where all the judges have been appointed within a few years. I have no idea that in the State of Illinois anybody will apply to a judge to have any one appointed. I do not suppose they will in the State of Indiana. We have never had any such officers appointed in my State hitherto, and I trust there will be no necessity for it. The elections in the State of Illinois, so far as I know or believe, have been fair elections. I do not mean to say that an illegal vote was never cast. Probably in half a million votes there would be more or less illegal votes cast; but that there ever were any considerable frauds practiced at the elections in my State I do not believe, or any frauds that these supervisors appointed by the judge of the court would have prevented. So that this law is to have its application I suppose chiefly in the southern States. Throughout the northern States, except in some of the large cities like New York or Philadelphia, I suppose it will have no practical operation whatever.

In the South who are your district judges? They have all been appointed within a few years, most of them by the present Administration or by that of Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Lin coln appointed the judges originally in all the southern States nearly. The old judges went out, as we know, by the war, and as soon as we got possession of those States, one of the first things done was to reëstablish the courts, and Senators will remember that at an early day, as soon as we got possession, the then President, Mr. Lincoln, appointed judges in nearly all these southern States. He did so in Louisiana, in Mississippi, in Alabama, South Carolina, Florida, and most of the judges who were appointed by Mr. Lincoln are holding office now. There have been some few ap pointments made by the present Administration. I do not know that any of these judges are unfit to exercise such a power as is proposed to be exercised here; and it certainly would be more convenient, and it seems to me more appropriate, if the law is to have any effect at all, that we should so frame it as to make it practical in its application, and I think the committee viewed it in that light. Of course they did, or they would not have reported the bill in that way. I am sorry the Senator from Indiana thinks it better now to change it. However, it is for the Senate to determine.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not wish to waste the time of the Senate, but we considered this matter I think very fully in the Judiciary Committee a year or two ago, and reported the bill giving this power of appointment to the circuit judges upon consideration as being that body of men who would be most removed from the intensity of local politics in any particular State or town where the district judges happened to live, and would be therefore more fair and impartial persons to act independently and rightly upon such subjects; and I thought that provision had the approval of my friend from Illinois.

I have looked through the Globe containing the Senate proceedings on that bill of 1871, which I believe was the first one that contained this supervising provision as it is called, and I find that no Senator on either side of the Chamber made any criticism or objection to the bill as reported from the Judiciary Committee providing that this function should be performed by the circuit judges and not by the district judges. The bill was vigorously discussed in all its sections except this particular one, which seems to have passed by general consent, as far as the hasty examination of the Globe that I have been able to make shows. All the other sections of the bill underwent the most searching criticism, and many of them opposition. So that the whole bill was brought under the most careful scrutiny, and, so far as I can find, no Senator

raised his voice to make the least objection to the way in which the committee had reported the bill in respect to this subject of the func tion to be performed by the circuit judges rather than by the district judges; and so the bill passed.

Now, it has been found by experience that the bill has worked great benefits to the people, not by Federal interference with the rights of the people of the States as such, but by the just operation of law under the Constitution upon the people by the government of the people in respect to those topics in which the Constitution declares this government of the people, and not the State government, may make regulations if it chooses.

Mr. NORWOOD. If the honorable Senator will pardon me a moment, was not the bill he refers to limited to cities with a population of twenty thousand?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes, sir; that is the only law there is on the subject, except this one of

course.

Mr. NORWOOD. And this bill applies to every precinct in the country. Does not the Senator see the vast difference between the powers that would be exercised by the circait judges then and the powers that are to be exercised now, when, instead of its being limited to cities having a population of over twenty thousand, it goes into every precinct, however small and however distant?

Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes; I do see a vast numerical difference, but the difference is not one of principle. You might as well argue if it is right for a circuit judge to try one cause when there were twenty to be tried he would not be a competent man to try those, as to argue that the circuit judge is unfit to perform this duty.

The ground upon which the committee selected the circuit judge to perform this duty I have stated, and I will restate it ; and that is, that he stood before the respective communities over which he was to exercise functions as a man who would be more likely to be free from local prejudice and influence than the district judge, whose operations were confined to a narrower limit, and who, it might be supposed in some cases, would be more likely to be influenced by partisan considerations than the judge of the wider jurisdiction and greater territorial scope. That was the ground upon which these judges were selected; not upon the question of how much work they would have to do; not upon the question of how much information they would have to obtain, but upon the broad principle of selecting the best agents to exercise the functions of jurisprudence under the Constitution and the laws. That was it; and that being it, I repeat, I am safe in saying it, I am sure, for I have gone through the proceedings, no Senator thought it right to make the least criticism or objection upon that ground. It went so far as that sec tion goes, through the Senate by unanimous consent. I do not mean that the bill went through by unanimous consent. Almost all of its sections were vigorously opposed and criticised; but so far as this section and this particular thing we are now speaking of was concerned, it met with the approval of everybody, if you are to assume that there is approval by everybody from discussing and opposing almost everything else and not discussing and opposing this.

Mr. THURMAN. Of what bill does the Senator speak?

Mr. EDMUNDS. I speak of the bill of 1871 which, as I understand it, first contained this provision about having two persons, one of each political party, to attend the polls and see what went on.

Mr. THURMAN. The Senator will recol· lect that was limited to cities and towns of twenty thousand and upward.

Mr. EDMUNDS. So I do recollect. That has just been stated by the Senator from