New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-03-27

| uetp pIeJuOiiCeS VI d po1lIou VI 'AS oO>A1
ern people against negro suffrage rendered
the complete enforcement OF the recon-
struction laws impossible without further
legislation. To subdue this disposition OF
one class Of the people to injure another
Congress passed what is known as the en-
torcement act This act was vigorously
opposed by the Democratic party, and still
more forcibly sustained by the Republican
party, as measure necessary for the pre-
seryation of the liberties of the people.
The law concentrates extraordinary powers
in the hands of the President, to be used
with Justice and discretion in cases of
emergency.
The Republicans said it was intended
for a good purpose by the law-naklng
power, but the Democrats urged it might
be made an instrument of great wrong In
the hands of an ambitious and unscrupu-
| lous President.
The con duct of the ku-Klux in portions
of the Southern States, and in fact of the
Democratic party, had fully impressed
every honest and peaceably inclined man
with the necessity Of some more stringent
and effectual measures to put stop to the
lawlessness that was attempting to gain a
political ascendency in the country by
trampling upon the rights of citizens. We
confess to having been among those who
advocated the passage Of the enforcement
law, because We deemed it necessary for
the protection of a government by the
people. Beyond this We did not suppose
Republican President would desire to
60, as we felt well assured the Republican
party would sanction no act detrimental
to the interest Of the people. The enforce
ment act is intended to enforce the rights
of citizens of the United States where
States fail to do it. In some of the
Southern States, where the Demo-
cratic party was i'll power, and
in others where it had prospect Of gain
ing possession of the government by con-
spring to prevent the colored men from
voting there was no effort made to put
down lawlessness, and the enforcement
law was intended to remedy this evil. ES
State failed to do its duty in this respect,
or went still further, and by acts Of legisla-
ton did discriminate between citizens on
account of race, color or previous condi-
ton, it was right for the supreme govern
ment Of the people to interpose IN their
behalf. To this extent and for this pur-
pose we advocated the passage Of the en-
forcement law. In a recent decision OF the
Supreme Court, in the case Of United
States against Avery and others, on a GER
tifcate of division from the Circuit Court
for the District Of South Carolina, it has
been determined when the enforcement
act may be lawfully applied in States for
the protection and enforcement of the
rights of citizens. The defendants in this
case were indicted for conspiracy under
the act of the tLirty-first of May, 1870,
entitled an act to enforce Ae rights Of
citizens Of the United States to vote in the
several States, and for other purposes,
known as the enforcement or ku-kluX
act. The particular act charged against
these parties was the murder of one Jim
Williams, while attempting to prevent
arms. Our object now is to give more
particularly the opinion Of the court in
regard to the proper application Of the
enforcement law. We never believed it
to be the intent of the federal makers
to have this law take effect in States that
were disposed and amply able to protect
all men recognized as citizens by the con-
stitution in their civil and political rights;
and have, therefore, condemned the at
tempted use of it in this State by federal
officials for political purposes.
Upon motion to quash the indictment
against the parties implicated in the naur-
der of Williams, it was decided the court
could not take co9zance of the questions,
the motion being preliminary in its char
acter, and determinable by the court be-
low as matter Of pure discretion. We
make the following extract from the
opinion of the Supreme Court in regard to
the interesting subjects under consldera-
ton
1t is urged. after controverting that the
DRY of the government, that the fifteenth
| amendment to the constitution contains no
| grant of power over the rights of suffrage,
but is in the nature of a restriction or
| abrldgment of such power in one respect
| only, and that is in the power to dIscrimi
| nate on account of race, color or previous
condition OF servitude. 1t is to enforce that
| section and prevent such discrimination
that by the second section Congress is au-
thorized to enact appropriate laws, and
| this article contemplates only legislative
! action, and does not apply to individuals.
| Before the act IN question can take effect,
| then, it must appear that the State has au-
| thorzed the discrimination prohibited by
| the amendment, and that such discrimina-
| ton is attempted to be carried out by an in
| divdual If State has not violated the
| article. and has passed no law to authorize
| such discrimination, the unauthorized act of
| an individual or a combination Of individ-
| uals makes no case for federal cognizance
| An individual can not deny or abridge the
right to vote in the sense OF this amend
meDt. 1t is right that can only be given,
or denied, or abridged by law. South Caro-
lima has not violated the amendment. She
has passed no act to discriminate on ac-
count Of race, color or previous condition
Of servitude, but admits citizens Of all
coiors. races or conditions, who have the
qualifications of voters, to the full enjoy
ment Of the right of suffrage. But if it De
held that it would be appropriate legisla-
ton to enforce this amendment against in
dlVlouals where State had passed no act,
then 1t is contended that the conspiracies