Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-10-14
POLICE POWERS OF A STATE.
Attorney General Williams De-
cisiOn in the Tennessee
Case.
Important Opinions of United States
Judges Adverse to williams Inter
probation of the Enforcement Act.
Washington (Oct. 12) Special to the Cincinnati
al

Judges Adverse to williams Inter
probation of the Enforcement Act.
Washington (Oct. 12) Special to the Cincinnati
Commercial.
The action of the Attorney General, in
refusing the authorities of Tennessee the
privilege OF prosecuting tie perpetrators of
the recent OUtrages in that State. is re-
ceived here with considerable Indignation.
1t is commented on as indicating that il is
the purpose of the Administration to make
the impression that the State governments
in the South are not able to preserve peace
and order, and that TO carry this out, the
Attorney General is determined, even in
cases where those authorities demonstrate
their ability and strength, that they shall
not be permitted to exercise their functions.
The Attorney General has been charged all
this fall with a persistent effort 10 make
capital for the Republican party at the
expense of the South, by misrepresenting
the condition of affairs in that section, and
by such other means as may be in his
power, rs in the case in question. The
uniform testimony of impartial observers,
Republicans and Democrats, who have
gone to the scene of alleged ouirages, for
the purpose Of arriving at the truth in re-
gard 10 the disturbances, has been that they
have been grossly exaggerated, and the con-
viction is inevitable that this has seen
done for the purpose Of assisting the Re
publican party at the coming elections.
With reference TO the action of the Attor-
ney General it may fairly be questioned
whether he has not permitted his zeal TO
Outrun his legal powers. He claims the
right to take the cases involved
away from the State officials of
Tennessee by authority of the En-
forcement act. United States District
Judge Ballard, Of Kentucky. has recently,
in a very public manner, expressed his
doubts as to the cOnstitutiOnality of the act
in a charge to a grand jury. The enforce
ment act was passed for the purpose of en-
forcing the fourteenth amendment to the
constitution, which, among other things,
declares, mo State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunitieS Of citizens of the United
States, nor shall any State deprive any per-
son of life, liberty or property without due
process of law, nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction thelequal protection
of the laws"
To show that the Attorney General
would probably not be sustained in his in
terpreiation Of the Enforcement Act, sew
eral opinions rs to its purport and effect
from some Of the ableSt iurists Of the cOun-
try may be cited. In the case of Barte-
never vs.. the State of Iowa, Justice Field,
of the United States Supreme Court, said,
in delivering his opinion about year ago:
"NO one has ever pretended, that / am
aware Of, that the Fourteenth, Amendment
inlerferes in any respect with the police
powers of the State. Certainly no one who
desires to give to that amendment its legit-
innate operation, has ever asserted for it any
such effect 1t was not adopted for any
such purpose
Justice Cody, of Michigan, i'm speaking
of tie amendment, recently, said: Not
withstanding this section, the protection of
all citizens in their privileges and immuni-
ties, and in their right to an impartial adj
ministration Of the laws is just as much
the business of the individual States as it
was before. The amendment Of the Con-
stitutioa does not concentrate power in the
General Government for any purpose of pO-
lice goyc. nment within the States"
Inthe United States SupremeCO Justice
Miller, in delivering the opinion in the eel
ebrated New Orleans slaughter-hOuse case,
used the following language:
WAS it the purpose of the Fourteenth
Amendment. by the simple declaration
that no State should make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges and
immunities Of the citizens Of the United
States, to transfer the security and prOtec-
ton of all the civil rights which we have
mentioned from the States to the Federal
Government; and where it is declared that
Congress shall have the power TO enforce
that art Gle, was it intended to bring with
in the power of Congress the entire Co
main of civil rights, heretofore belonging
exclusively to the States? We are con-
WINGED that no such results were intended
by the Congress which proposed these
amendments, nor by the Legislatures OF
the Sites which ratified them"
Justice Brady, of the same court, in the
Grant parish Louisiana) case, declared an
opinion in strict accord with these quoted.
Thus it will be seen that four of the lead
ing Judges in the United States, all Repub-
Iicans, too. Lave united in the opinion that
the enactments upon which the Attorney
General relies, do not rob the State OF her
police powers, and do not confer upon the
Federal authorities the right to take the
prosecution of such offenseS away from the
State authorities, especially in cases where
the latter are able aud willing 10 do so;
while the fifth Judge Mr.. BIllardl dellber-
aielv questions the constitutiOnality OF the
enforcement act, using such emphatic Ian
aIlage As the following: sFor all the dis
orders of the State the United States are in
no wise responsible. They have no power
to punish them"
Be not ashamed to confess that yOu have