Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-06-28
LOUISIANA.
Circuit Judge Woods Denies a
New Trial to the C0lfax 2
Prisoners.
Associate Justice Bradley of the
Supreme Court Differs.
THE Difference Certified to the
u. s. Supreme Court.
Bradley is Unwilling 90 Declare the
Ku.Klux Law Unconstituftonai, but
Riddles the Indictment on which
the Prisoners were Convicted.

Gat5s Cucult Court IN the Grant parish
case, Judge Woods rendered decision on
the motion for new trial which was re-
fused. An extra of the PicGy7me gives the
following account Of the further proceedings
in the case:
At IL o'clock Justice Bradley took his
seat oil the bench with Judge Woods and
announced that he had prepared decision
upon the points raised by Mr.. Mar in ar
rest of the judgment and testing the consti-
tutionality of the Ku-klux act. Justice
Bradley then read his decision, most
lengthy, exhaustive and intelligent one.
Under the indictment the prisoners were
charged with. first, conspiracy 10 take away
certain rights from citizens of African de-
scent. second, their commission OF murder
whilst engaged in this conspiracy, and
found guilty of 10 counts. Thst Congress
has tho rieht TO pass laws to carry out the
provisions ofthe Thiftssnth, Fourteenth and
Fifthteenth Amendments nc one will deny.
The question is how far this right extends.
The Fifteenth amendment declares that all
persons in the United States shall not be
disqualified from voting on account of race
or color, or previous condition. The
United States is Lnotl given the power to
mss laws relative TO elections or voting
but simply 10 sec that the States do not in
terfere with these rights, the United States
has only the power to enforce this right
The msmen. the State fails 10 comply with
the duties forced upon it the United States
are called 10 interfere and the Interference
OF Congress when the State is ready 70
punish the violation IF these rights is
Unnecessary, Injudieio6Ss sna Illegal.
TocOnstitute an offense of which tie Unite
States has jurisdiction, it must be shown
that conspiracy was formed to take away
certain rights from persons on account n
race, calUr or previous condition. The
fifteenth amendment declares that the right
of every citizen of the United states to
vote shall not be denied by the United
States or any State on account Of race, col
or or previous condition. When a State
refuses this right Congress has power to
pass laws enforcing the amendment. Con-
gress has also the power tn secure these
rights against individuals. Therefore am
unwilling to affirm the unconStitutiOnality
of this act.
But lei us examine the counts of this
indictment. The first count charges the
prisoner with cOnspiring TO prevent certain
persons Of African descent from peaeeably
assembling. The constitution OF the
United States declares that Congress shall
not interfere with the right of peaceable
assemblagcs. Does this amount to an
Affirmative law, giving us jurisdiction over
all persons who shall interfere with the
right of peaceable aSsemblages? clearly
not.
The second count is the same as the first.
The third count declares that conspira-
cy was formed TO take the lives of certain
citizens of African descent without due
process of law. All murderers do this.
Has the United States jurisdiction of all
murdererS2
The fourth count is too vague and gen-
eral. So are the fifth and eighth. Their
vaguenesS is such that they cannot stand.
The sixth and seventh counts charge the
prisoner with conspiring against certain
persons because they had voted or were going
to vote. No. word is said that this was
done because OF race, color or previous COLI
dition. This is vitally necessary. Mere
interference with the right of voting is no
offense under the jurisdiction of the Uni
ted States.
The following eight counts are literal
copies of the first eight and must fall with
them. am accordingly of opinion that
the indictments are
Fatally Defective.
Judge Woods then in a few words an
nounced that he differed in opinion with
Justice Bradley and that they had resolved
TO certify TO a difference of opinion SO that
the Supreme Court of the United States
could pass upon The question. As, how
ever, the superior Judge had decided against
the validity of the indictment, it could not
stand for the present and the prisoners
were therefore entitled TO bail. Bail in the
sum of $, 900 for each prisoner was furn-
ished and Hadnot Cruikshank and Irwin
were set at liberty and surrounded and
congratulated by their friends.
A Model Radical OGiciaI- EmbezzIcr,
RObber and FOrger.
Milton ). Peeler, Kellogg's Grant parish
Tax Collector, under bond for embezzling
several thousand dollars Of State funds, was
reaITested to-day, charged with planning
several robberies and with forgery.