The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-07-12

: Tor q redress OF grievances. Does this diSafirm
6 ance Of the power Of Congress to prevent tn
l assembling of the people amount to an atfirma
tive power to punish individuals for disturbin,
assemblies? This would be strange inference
That is the prerOgative Of the States. 1t be
longs to the preservation of the public peace ant
the fundamental rights of the people. The PEG
Pile Of the States do not ask Congress to prOtec
the right but demand that it shall not interior,
with il.
Has anything since occurred 10 give Congress,
legislative power over the subject-matter Til,
AlNth amendment declares that no State shall
by law abridge the privileges or immumties Of
citizens of the United States. Grant that this
prohibition now prevents the States from inter
felng with the right TO assemble, as being one OF
such privileges and immunities still does it give
Congress power to legislate over the subject
Power to enforce the amendment il all that is
given to Congress. If the amendment is not
violated, 1t has no power over the subject.
The second count, which is tor conspiracy to
interfere with certain citizens in their right to
bear arms, is open to the same criticism as the
first.
The third count charges conspiracy to deprive
certain citizens Of African descent Of their lives
and Liberties without due process Of law Every
murderer and rObber does this. Congress surely
Is not vested with power to legislate for the sup
Presslon and punishment OF all murders, rob-
| berries, and assaults committed within the States
In none Of these counts is there anv ayermenf
| that the State had, by its laws interferred with
any OF the rights referred to, or that it had at
tempted to deprive the citizens Of life, liberty, or
property without due process OF law, or that it
dbl not afford to all the equal protection OF the
laws. The third count cannot be sustained.
| The fourth count charges a conspiracy to de-
prlve certain colOred citizens Of African descent
OF the free exercise and enjoyment Of the right
and privilege to the full and equal benefit of all
laws and proceedings for the security Of persons
| and property which lis enjoyed by white citizens
The right and privilege to interfere with the
exercise OF which is here alleged to have been
nf
the Constitution i'll express terms. The XIVth
| amendment, amongst other things, declares that
no State shall deny to any person within its ju-
risdictlon the equal protection Of the laws. But
the indictment does not alleSe that this has been
done. The count manifestly refers to the rights
secured by the civil rights bill of April 9Th 1866,
which has already been referred to. That act, az
We have seen expressly declares that all citizens,
OF every race and color, without regard to any
previous condition Of slavery or Involuntary SER
vitude, shall have the same right IN every State
and Territory, to make and enforce contracts,
etc, and to full and equal benefits Of all laws and
proceedings for the security Of person and prop
erty as is enjoyed by white citizens.
The conspiracy charged in the fourth count is
conspiracy to interfere with the free exercise
and enjoyment Of this right
But the count does not contain any allegation
that the defendants committed the acts COM
planned Of with design to deprive the injured
persons OF their rights Oh account OF their race
color, or previous condition of servtude. This, az
we have seen, is an essential ingredient in the
crime to bring it within the cogniZance Of the
United States authorities. Perhaps such a de-
sign may be inferred from the allegation that the
persons Ia ured were Of the African race and that
the intent was to deprive them Of the exercise
and enjoyment Of the rights enjoyed by white
CITIZENS. But 1t ought not to have been left to
Inference; it should have been alleged.
On this ground therefore, think this count is
defective and cannotbe sustained.
1t Is also defective on account Of the vagueness
nvbH(r Itf
hinder Them in the free exercise and enjoyment
Of their several and respective right and privilege
to the full and equal benefit of all laws and pro-
ceedings then and there enacted" etc 1t seems
10 me that such general and sweeping charge,
without any specification OF any laws or proceed
nSs, does not amount to the aveIment Of Grim
inal act. IL is not merely Informal, it is INSULT
Gent.
The fifth and eighth counts are open to the
same objection Of vagueness and generality as
the fourth, and for that reason neither OF them
can. III my judgment, be sustained.
The sixth count charges conspiracy to prevent
and hinder certain citizens OF the United States,
who were OF African descent and persons of color
III the exercise and enjoyment Of their right to
vote at any election to be thereafter held in til.
State OF Louisiana, or in the parish Of Grant,
knowing they had such right to vote. A con-
spracy to mndef person from exercising his
right to vote at any election is made indictable by
the fourth section Of the enforcement act; also
by the sixth section, read in connection with the
first.
Over the general subject Of the right to vote in
the States, and the regulation Ut said right, Con-
gress as we have seen, has power to legislate
The XVIII amendment relates only to discrmna-
tons on account Of race color, and previous con-
tlitlon OF servitude, and, we have before shown
IL a prohibition against the making Of such dis
examinations.
The law on which this count is founded is not
confined to cases Of discrimination above referred
to. 1t Ii general aud universal III its application.
Such law IL not supported by the Constitution.
The charge contained in the count does not de-
scribe a criminal offence known to any valid and
constitutional law OF the United States. 1t should
at least, have been shown that the conspiracy
was entered into to deprive the injured persons
of their right to vote by reason Of their race,
color, or previous condition of servitude.
This count also regard as invalid.
The seventh count charges conspiracy to ILL
can descent, because, being duly qualified to
VOTE they had exercised their right to do 50, and
had voted at the election held in Louisiana III
November, 1872 and at other times. This count
is subject to the same objection the Last, and is
invalid for the same reason.
The next eight counts which the verdict was
found are literal copies, respectively Of the first
eight, SO far relates to the language on which
their validity depends The same observations
apply to them which apply 10 the first eight.
In my opinion the motion III arrest Of Judgment
mus. be granted