New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-11-28
THE RETURNING BOARD CONyRO-
HERST.
Case Of Kellogg VS.. WarmOth, Envoivfng
the Right 10 an Iniunction-Third Day
of the Argument.

AAC SecS Va ~ L IA6lIOgS 4~SSS'--i-s - =
Wermoth ct ais was resumed yesterday il
the United States Circrt Court, befor
Judge Durell
The lobby was filled by spectators, VIII
manifested the anxidy that has been al
ordinary incident in the progress Of thi
trial, and the graf mass waited with some
cOmmendable phience the commencement
and listened With some WEAKNESS to the
progress anf conclusion Of the argument
At Has ne Judge took his seat, and the
court oDAed. On motion of District AZ
torney 5eckwith, the grant and petit jury
were discharged uRtiJ Monday q: eleyen
o'ell:k.
" the court lreading from che tfocRee) =.
'Fle case OF w. 2. Kellogg ". II. G. War.
Hoth ct ais. Continued from yesterday.
Mr.. J. b. Eustis-In any preliminary pro
ceedings the court, take it. can exercise
! no larger Jurisdiction than it could in the
! principal suis the parties are entitled to
| bring. In other words, your honor viii
! look TO the constitution and the laws there.
! under for authority. Tatheg than 20 any par
; :icular statute
! viii not, in the manner pursued by the
| opposing counsel, taunt my adversaries
! with arguments that were not adduced, but
!: will content myself with laying our case
! before the court, who Will not determine
! what the law ought 70 be, what it might be,
; but viii pronounce what the law IS.
+; Here is a statute of the United States
/ under which this suit is brought by one in.
! diyidCal tor d thing, and we see citizen Of
! Louisiana coming into court to claim the
position Of Governor, and setting up that
! he was defeated and deprived under the
statute of this eight; asking that John Mc
| Emery be not qualified as Governor; asking
! that some four hundred officers be not al
| lowed to take their places: asking not only
THAI the whole State machinery be stopped,
but that it be reversed and turned tie
other way asking that every constitutional
guarantee be obIiterated. Whence this ex-
traordinary suit? [ think that fhe quss-
fiCn U6 jurisdiction should be inquired mo,
and that il should be ascertained Whether
your honor is not asked to 0verIeap every
barrier established in the constitution Of
the United States jD the determination Of
this question.
II a State abridges Che SighS OF Suffrage
other than for cause Of participation the
rehell0no it shall, under tire fourteenth
amendment, suffer q penalty III ne di-
minution Of its representation Con
gre 6, leaving even under this amerlmenrs
the whole question of suffrage TO L deter
mined by the individual States. Iven I'M
turning To Mr.. Beckwith) is mstakn if he |
supposes that it intertered with theright Of |
suffrage III the States. | treat th;squestion |
only as relating to the question ofjurisGic-
ton. What says the law: "That.he right |
OF suffrage shall never be abridgd on ac- !
counc Of race, color or previous ondition."
yhe right OF regulating suttrageis by the
theory OF the government let$ with the
Statess and many of the States egulate it
by special statutes. The United States de.
termlned to enforce the right suffrage.
and 20 settle it upon ever endugng founda-
tiOnso
In inp opinion, the statute Hthe thirty.
first of May is the most carefully drawn
and elaborate, and there neve was a pre-
scripfion OF physic ever draw! with more
care for the aueyiation of SheeviIs il was
intended to cure than this statlte. 1t was ;
to be expectedo For when Congress at
tempted to handle SO Slelicae d subject.
what did they find? A comic: UetN cen
teQtTal and State tuthOIitie; and such
legislation IS not Co be expected for the
protection of one race as against another
where the population are homogeneous.
Therefore it was to be expeGed that Con
gress should perform their dur and provide
specific remedy, real or imaginary Take
the criminal jurisdiction under the statute:
=" We, in the plentitude of our supremacy,
will raise our strong arm Co gve tie 3ight
CT suffrage TO all, without repcct 20 race,
color OF previous condition: We will endow
a court with jurisdiction, make statute
brlstling with pains and penalties, and make
il so that If the President shLIl command
the army and the many, the Trits of that
court shall be enforced" Whatthen2 What
If this law has been adopted That does
not interfere with the SightS Ut others
under that statute.
In case Of a contest over a nJte between
two citizens of New YOlk, it being private
case, and bill of chancery should be in
voked, would it be pretended that this
court had jurisdictiOnR Suppose citizen
Of New York has cause Of admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction, and that the only
evidence is in possession of the Governor of
his State, and that the GOyerngr was about
70 destroy that evidence, and that he asked
'0ur honor for intervention. Your honor {
would turn to the eleventh amendment and
Il course determine that you have no juris-
tlcuOn IN any case where a State is party. l
}ring this action under the law, the plain 1
III says, Il can't bring it," Very well, we I
lave nothing to do with yOur misf0rtuues. l
he argument Of distress can not be used to I
Dhuence the jurisdiction Of court. Let |
no refer to the case of Florida VS. Georgia, t
question of boundary. Here the Supreme a
'ourt of the United States admitted that il /
here was any possible mode for the L
j
laintaiu it, aud Chief Justice fancy, in an
judicial discussion, said that
Mess the court should interfere, interests I
great public Importance would be i'm b
eriled, and though the United States At v
)rney General was permitted to file evi- .
ence, the ground was taken that he could Q
OF be heard in argument. Here Mr.. JUS Il
ce Curtis said: Has it ever been supposed O
lat in a suit between States third party Il
yuld be brought in because his presence r
as necessary Has it ever been supposed 81
lat, under the judiciary act, it contem- G.
ates the hearing of such party, or has b
ever been determined that the court G.
'uld not enter into the investigation at D
/ | adhere to the latter opinion. Here ii
case in which the court refused to en- OF
rtain suit of a third party. But in this Il
se every citizen of the State is brought tt
to court on bill of the complainant on ia
e basis of whatever he chooses to allege. tC
A case might arise where, if YOU alleged al
at John McEnery intended to destroy OF
e evidence in the case; even then, take la
the court would not have jurisdiction al
long as you do not bring the suit to &C
lich You are entitled, how can Won ex- NJ
CT that we will fail to plead exemption to VI
risdiction of the court. Take the Madrass tit
alien, case, where no one disputed that
is was a case Of admiralty and maritime to
'isdiction. The question involved the a,
hit to a number Of slaves, and the title of Ill
idrass was affirmed by the Circuit Court la
the United States. When the case got nc
the Supreme Court it felt itself called W,
on to decide case where one party had ha
Constitutional right, the other constitu- th
nal eXempton-preCisefY our case. The Or
1rt told Mr Madras, ''Go and bring co
ar admiralty suit and we will decide the tn
;e, but IN reality you have brought the al
It against the State of Georgia to claim Or