New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-09
NEW ORLEANS, TUESDAY, MAY 8; 1871.

| lSHuanbS tnaI III was tne purpose OF the peO
pie by these amendments to reserve to them
selves and the States the power to secure
| the rights enumerated therein against the
| action OF Congress, and not give Congress
power to enforce them as against the
| States.
We have thus far considered this demur-
rer, and it seems to have been argued for
| the defense without reference to the recent
| amendments to the constitution. AS we
are of opinion that the fourteenth amend
ment has vital bearing upon the question
| raised, it is well that we should look to its
| provisions.
| 1t declares that "all persons, born or nat
| uralized in the United States, and subject to
| the jurisdiction thereof. are citizens of the
| United States and the State wherein they
| reside"
By the original constitution citizenship in
| the United States was a consequence of citi-
zenship in State. BY this clause this Or
| der of things is reversed. Citizenship in
the United States is defined, it is made indie
pendent of citizenship in State, and citi-
zeDship in the State is result of citizenship
in the United States. So that person born
or naturalized in the United States, and
| subject to its jurisdiction, is, without refer
ence to State constitutions or laws, entitled
| to all the privileges and immunities secured
| by the constitution of the United States to
| citizens thereof.
| The amendment proceeds: "No State
! shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges and immunities of
citizens OF the United States
What are the privileges and immunities
of citizens of the United States here re-
ferred tos
They are undoubtedly those which may
be denominated fundamental; which belong
| of right to the citizens of all free States,
and which have at all times been enjoyed
by the citizens of the several States which
compose this Union from the time of their
becoming free, independent and sovereign.
Wash. c. c. r. $3.50.
Among these we are safe in including
those which in the constitution are ex-
| pressly secured to the people, either as
| against the action of the federal or State
governments. Included in these are the
rights of freedom of speech and the right
peaceably to assemble.
To recur now to the first ground Of de-
murrer. Are these rights secured to the
| people by the constitution of the United
States We find that Congress is forbidden
to impair them by the first amendment, and
the States are forbidden to impair them by
the fourteenth amendment. Can they not,
then, be said to be completely secured 7
They are expressly recognized, and both
Congress and the States are forbidden
to abridge them. Before the fourteenth
|
hem. but the State might. Since the four
teenth amendment the bulwarks about
these rights have been strengthened, and
now the States are positively inhibited
| from impairing or abridging them, and so
far as tue provisions of the organic law can
secure them they are completely and abso-
lutely secured. The next clause of the
| fourteenth amendment reads: Nor shall
| any State deny to any person within its ju-
risdiction the equal protection of the laws"
| Then follows an express grant of power to
| the federal government: Congress may
enforce this provision by appropriate legis-
latiOn."
From these provisions it follows clearly.
as it seems to us, that Congress has the
power, by appropriate legislation, to protect
the fundamental rights of citizens of the
United States against unfriendly or INSULT
cient State legislation, for the fourteenth
amendment not only prohibits the making
| or enforcing of laws which shall abridge
| the privileges of the citizen, but prohibits
the States from denying to all persons
within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws. Denying includes inaction as
well as action, and denying the equal pro-
lection of the laws includes the omission to
| protect, as well as the omission to pass laws
for protection. The citizen of the United
States is entitled to the enforcement of the
| laws for the protection of his fundamental
| rights, as well as the enactment of such
laws. Therefore, to guard against the
invasion of the citizens fundamental rights,
and to insure their adequate protection,
as well against State legislation as State in
| action or incOmpetency, the amendment
! gives Congress the power to force it's provi-
sions by appropriate legislation. And as it
would be unseemly for Congress to inter
fere directly with the State enactments, and
| as it can not compel the activity of State
officials, the only appropriate legislation it
| can make is that which will operate directly
on offenders and Offenses, and protect the
| rights which the amendment secures. The
| extent to which Congress shall exercise this
| power must depend on its discretion in view
of the circumstances of each case If the
| exercise of it in any case should seem to in-
| terfere with the domestic affairs of State,
| it must be remembered that it is for the pur-
pose of protecting federal rights, and these
must be protected, even though it interfere
| with State laws or the administration of
! State laws.
We think, therefore, that the right of
freedom of speech, and the other rights emu
merated in the first eight articles of amend
ment to the constitution of the United
States, are the privileges and im1nunities of
citizens of the United States, that they are
secured by the constitution, that Congress
has the power to protect them by appropri-
ate legislation.
We are further of opinion that the act on
which this Indictment is founded applies to
cases of this kind, and that it is legislation
appropriate to the end in view, namely, the
protection of the fundamental rights of
citizens of the United States.
But it is alleged for further ground of de-
murrer that this Indictment charges the
commission of several and distinct offenses
1t charges that the defendants did band and
conspire together with intent to injure,
oppress, threaten and intimidate, etc. The
well settled rule of criminal pleading is
that the operative words of q criminal
statute may all be inserted IN the indict-
ment, connected by the coniunctive land"
and that proof of any one of the acts
charged will sustain the Indictment This
indictment is framed under this rule, and
we think this objection to it not well taken.
We are of opinion, also that this indict-
ment is sufficiently definite and certain.
The law describes particularly the effenses
created by it, and the indictment follows
the language of the law.
Our conclusion is, therefore, that the de- |
murrer to this indictment must be overruled. |
Busteed, j. concurred.
At late hour last night the compliments |
-