National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-12-05
THE ENFORCEMENT ACT-JUDGE
HUGHES DECISION.

The extent of the jurisdiction of the Fed
eral courts over the rights of voters under
the so-called enforcement act is again the
subject of general discussion, provoked by
the recent decision of Judge Hughes, of the
Eastern District of Virginia. Fortunately
for the country, and for the interests of the
Republican party, Judge Bond, of Balti-
more, who as circuit judge sat with Judge
Hughes differed from his opinion, and the
question which arose out of the Petersburg
election frauds has been carried up to the
Supreme Court of the United States. While
no one will doubt the sincerity of Judge
Hughes Republicanism, a general regret
prevails that he has been forced by his con-
ViCtions to assume a position at variance
with the masses of the party. The Peters
burg judges of election had been indicted
in mis- court for an alleged violation of the
law referred to. the indictments having
been founded upon the fourth section,
which reads as follows:
eff any person, by force, bribery, threats,
intimidation, or other unlawful means, shall
hinder, delay, prevent, or obstruct, any citizen
from doing any act required to be done to
qualify him to vote, or from voting at any
election, by the people in any State, Territory,
district, county, city, parish, township, school
distriCt, municipality, or other territorial sub
diYisiO. such person shall, for every such Of
Tense, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall,
on conviction thereof, be fined, &c, or fmpris-
Oned, &c, or both at the discretion of the
court"
This section he holds to be uncOnstitu-
tiOnal because he does not find that Congress
has any power under either the fourteenth
or fifteenth amendments to exercise legis-
latiVe control over the right of suffrage in
mu nicipal elections held in States wherein
that right is not abridged con account of
race, color or previous condition of ser
"vitude" He does net deny that this
clause from the fifteenth amendment
gives Congress the power to enforce the
right of suffrage, and if he had stopped
there his decision would have been
more consistent; but examining closely the
privileges and immunitles' of citizenship
he finds that the right to vote is derived
from the State and not from the United
States. ''The right to VOTE" he says,
"seems to be not an inherent right, but a
"cOnferred privilege, a privilege not de-
"rived from the United States, but from
" the State alone a privilege belong
cling to the man as a citizen of the
State, and not to him in his char
''acter as a citizen of the United States.
" Nor does the obligation of the United
States to guarantee to the States a repub-
" iCan form of government change the fact
"now existing and which has existed from
" the founding of the Union, that to the
States is left the power of defining and
Regulating the right of suffrage, power
without which a State could scarcely be
considered as any longer retaining its
autonomy"
While it will be readily admitted that the
right of suffrage was originally derived
from the States it must be conceded that
the fifteenth amendment is open to such
a construction as to embrace in its compre-
hensive scope of enforcing power authority
for Congress to maintain that right, and for
the Federal courts, under the laws of Con-
gress, to enforce it. Judge Hughes, how
ever, finds that in the Petersburg case no
denial of the right to vote was charged or
proven, and held that his court had, con-
sequently, no Jurisdiction, and concludes
with the decision that the fourth section of
the act quoted above is unconstitutional.
Now that the case is made up we may ex-
pect final decision from the Supreme
Court in due course of time, possibly be-
fore the next national campaign, and in
time to allow the people of the Southern as
well as the Northern States TO understand
the full meaning of this intricate question.