The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1872-03-20

| to Congress to provide for organizing, arming
| and disciplning the militia has a direct inter
est in seeing that the right which the constitu-
ton itself declares essential to a well ordered
militia is not infringed by unlawful authority
and in the absence of State legislature to pun
ish violations of the law; it is not reasonable
construction of the act to construe it as apply
ing to this act act as well as to any other.
For The defence it is urged after controvertng
the theory of the government that the fifteenth
amendment to the Constitution contains no
grant of power in the right of suffrage but is in
the nature of a restriction or abridgement of
such power in one respect only and that is in
the power to discriminate on account of race,
color and previous condition of servitude. 1t is
to enforce that section and prevent such dis
elimination that by the second section, Con-
gr1ss is authorized to enact appropriate laws,
and this article contemplates only legislative
action and does not expressly apply to individ-
uals before the act in question can take effect.
Then it must appear that the State has author
lied the action prohibited by the amendment,
and that such discrimination is attempted to be
carried out by an individual. If the State has
not violated the aarticle, and has passed no law
to authorize such discrimination, the unauthor
lied act of an individual or combination of in
dividuals make no case for federal cognizance.
The individual cannot deny or abridgc the right
to vote on the sense of this amendment. 1t is
right that can only be given or denied or abridg
ed by law. South Carolina has not violated the
amendment.
She has passed no act to discriminate on &C
count of race, color or previous condition of
servitude, but admits citizens of all colors races
or conditions, who have qualifications to vote,
the enjoyment of the rights of suffrage.
But if it be held that it would be appropriate
legislation to enforce this amendment against
individuals where State had passed no act
then it is contended that the conspiraces
charged are not within the jurisdiction of the
court because they are offences not within the
province of the amendment, nor appropriate
legislation to enforce the amendment, and are
therefore void
1t is then submitted as too clear for argu-
ment, that within the Legitimate sphere of
rights reserved to the States, is included the
right of exclusive legislation in the matter of
suffrage. The very existence of the States de-
ponds upon it and they have never surrendered
the jurisdiction. 1t is declared that not single
offence defined in the act in question, comes
within the provisions of the amendment.
When State, by the amendment, surrendered
the right to discriminate in the matter of suf-
frage on the ground of color, race, &C., and au-
thorized Congress to enforce that amendment,
they surrendered no other right touching suf-
frage and gave Congress no further power over
the subject. Hence the enforcement of the act
is not appropriate legislation.
The constitutional provision in respect to the
right of the people to bear arms, contains no
grant of power to the Federal government over
the right to keep or bear arms. On the con-
trary, the established construction is, it only
recognizes pre-existing right in the people Of
the States, and is merely a restriction on the
Federal government against any interference
with that right, and consequently subject
matter exclusively within the cognizance of the
States. 1t is contended that the jurisdiction
attempted to be given by the act over another
felony committed in an attempt to do acts pro-
hibited in this case of murder, belongs exclu-
sively to the courts of South Carolina, and that
consequently SO much of the act is unconstitu-
tional and void, as an increase of legislative
power not in pursuance of the constitution.
The case is argued in behalf of the govern
ment by the Attorney General and Assistant
Attorney General Hill, and on behalf of the
accused by Henry Stanberry and Reverdy John
son.
The argument thus far is ON the question of
the jurisdiction of the government, moving to
dismiss. The merits are given but it is not GER
tain that they will be argued. 'i 7.