Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-12-11
THE ENFORCEMENT ACT UNCGNSTI.
TITIONAL.

1t has been the policy of the sup
pOrters of the Grant administration TO
stave off a decision by the Supreme
Court Of the United States upon the
constitutionality Of the enforcement
act, and they have so far succeeded,
Notwithstanding it was enacted more
than four years ago. But there is a
fair prospect now, that the court of
last resort will shortly pass upon this
law, which has been twisted and con-
tlrted into a license authorising the
most infamous prosecutions to which
people were ever subjected. Two
United States Judges-one of them on
the Supreme bench and the other
district Judge-have pronounced this
law unconstitutional, as has been
held by the Democratic party from
the day of its enactment. The dis
agreement of the Judges holding the
United States Circuit Court at Rich
mond in the Petersburg election case,
brings before the Supreme Court of the
United States, a question substantially
tn same as that involved in the case
fir IN Grant Parish, Louisiana, already
before the same tribunal. The fifteenth
amendment to the Constitution OF the
United States, declares that the right
of citizens Ct the United States to
vote, shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States, or by any State,
on account Of race, color, or previous
Condition of servitude." 1t is a restric-
ton upon State legislation. But the en-
forcement acts go mu h further They
declare who may vote; they impose
penalties not only upon State officers
but upon private persons for obstruct-
ing The exercise of the suffrage; they
assume the right Of Congress to define
and punish ordinary crimes of violence
against the colored people; they even
make it a penal offense to prevent "any
whether belonging to the
race which the amendments were in
tended to protect or not ''from voting
at any election" Justice Bradley of the |
Supreme Court, in the Louisiana case, |
declared that in these particulars, or at |
least in some Ct them, the acts were |
plainly unconstitutional. There can
be no constitutional legislation of |
Congress, said he, ''fol directly en-
forcing the privileges and immunities of
citizens of the United States by origi-
nal proceedings IN the courts Of the
United States, where the only constitu-
tional guaranty of such privileges and
is that no State shall pass
any law to abridge them, and where the
State has passed no laws adverse to
them, but on the contrary has passed
laws 20 sustain and enforce them" In
the Petersburg case District Judge
Hughes arrived at an opinion against
the constitutionality Of parts Of the
Acts by a different pro-
cess of reasoning from Judge Bradley,
and declared that any law Of Con-
gress is unconstitutional which makes
the preventing Of a voter from voting
in a State election penal on any other
account than Of race, color or previous
of servitude.''
The NeaV York Tribune congratulates
the country that the important ques-
ton raised in these two cases is now in
the way of final settlement, and adds:
eve shall not attempt TO anticipate
the judgment OF the court; but what
ever that may be, it is plain that the
of F sderal legislation since
the war have been IN Il dangerous di-
rection, and that it is high time for
the Supreme Court to mark the line
which Congress may not rightly pass.
The national law-givers at Washing
ton have arrOgated to themselves an
authority over State concerns, cleo
tious, the preservation of the peace.
which they would not have dreamed of
asserting fifteen years ago; and the
mischief which they have done by rash
laws has been aggravated by the extra
ordinary and forced Interpretation put |
upon those loose statutes by President /
Grant Attorney General. If the laws
themselves are questionable. the man.
ner OF their execution has been nothing
less than soandalous."