The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-04-01
ENFORCEMENT LAWS.
Do They Violate the Rights of StateS?---
Are They Constitutional?
Argument Of David Dudley Field
in the Supreme Court.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION PENDING.


timed to-day and argument upon II IS likely TO
last during the week. The defendants IN the
original suit were Cruikshank ana ninety-siX
other white citizens OF Grant parish Louisiana,
who were indicted Tor murder, conspiracyto pre-
vent negroes from voting, and Tor other crimes
and misdemeanors under numerous counts. The
present parties TO the suit outside OF the United
States government are the only original defend
ants who were convicted OF criminal conduct.
The question now before the Supreme Courr
is:--"ls the Congressional legislation 10
enforce the prohibitions or the last three
anne ndm ents 10 the constitution compatible with
that instrument ?" The counsel or UIulkshank
and his fellows, Messrs. Reverdy Johnson, David
Dudley Field, John A. Campbell and A. H. MARI, OF
Louisiana. claim that IL is not. Arguments were
made to-day by Solicitor General Phillips, on the
part OF the United States. and Messrs Field, MARI
and p Phillips on that OF the defendants in error.
Mr.. Field made iorcible argument, OF which the
following presents its strongest points,
The argument that shall have the honor to ad-
iress to the Court Will De confined TO the ques-
lion OF compatibility between the federal consti-
tuition and the legislation OF Congress. winch -
supposed 10 authorize the present Indictment. IL
IT, nleed, true that Ii the form oil the accusation
u not conlormable to the act OF Congress tne he
.endants are entitled TO be presently discharged,
but, tnasInuch as a new indictment might possibly
be preferred, supposing the present TO ial Tor de-
feet OF iorm this question Is insignificant COM
pared with the other. For my part shall leave
the matter OF procedure wnere IL now STANDS
upon the argument ana conhne myself TO the
question oil conformity or non-comlorInity or the
act oil Congress 10 the constitution. II tue legls-
lation upon winch TINS indictment rests
Is conIormaole TO the organic law OIL TINS country
tnen II matters little what Is or 10 not decided
about the form Of proceeding. The substance OF
American constitutional government, as received
from the fathers, will nave gone, and the forms
will not be long in following. Let US reduce and
formulate the question, II We can, 70 as 10 sepa-
rate tue Incidental from the essential, In order
that our attention may be Withdrawn from all
otner considerations than that oil the one lunda~
me ntai and permanent theory upon which this
legislation must stand, II 1t stand at all.
In order to reduce and formulate me question
Mr.. Field ran through the provisions and prohIb-
lions OIL the latest three amendments TO The con-
stltution aud OF the acts which nave been passed
by Congress as appropriate legislation" 10 en-
force sucn provisions and prohibitions
THE CAUSE or THE SUIT.
BY authority or this legislation ntnety-seven
persons were INDICTED together in the Circuit
Court OF the United States Tor the District OF
Louisiana ana three OF them. The present delepd-
ants, were found guilty upon the first sixteen
counts. Inc indicLment was found under the
sixth and seventh sections OF the Enforcement
act, sixteen counts being for simple conspiracy
under the sixth section and the other sixteen
being for conspiracy, win overt acts resulting in
IL upon which these defendants have been
convicted, Is supposed 10 ne JUSTIFIED oy
that section Is said TO rest upon the late amend
ments. In considering the question whether
IL Is or Is not supported by them, ! assume what
indeed no one disputes, mat before tue late
amendments this section ana the same may be
sad OF the other sections, would have been be-
yond the competency or Congress. Inc point OF
contention, therefore, Is whether the amendments
have conferred the power. Upon TINS my nrst
proposition Is, that &c was not the design oil The
people in adopting them 10 change the iunda-
mental character Of their government, or 10 alter
the relations between the Union and the states.
They Intended that the Union should continue 10
be what IL had Deen before. to use the language,
nlighty changed, OF the late chief Jnstlce an IN
uNioN OF INDEsrRUcrIBLE STATES.
The events OF the last fifteen years are no secret.
nn -
mons 10 which, in its varying pros ress It gave
rise. anu It's great results. known OF all men.
freedom OF the slaves. Upon the nnal settlement
while It was NOT thought necessary 10 make any
secession and the relation OF the states 10 tne
Union, II Was thought necessary TO provide for the
equality OF the freedmen. In dong THIS two
courses were open; one was 70 place Them and
AL their rights and relations under the
:ognizance Of the federal power, and the
Drher was 10 leave them as they were, under the
soxnzance OF tue States but u provide that these
snould make no discrimination to their dIsadyan-
.age. The latter course was adopted. The articles
IRE congruous aud plainly adapted 70 that end.
rney all imply tnai apart from the prohibitions,
ihe states nave penary power over the subject,
angle qualincaton that II shall treat all ALIKE.
the emancipated slaves side ny side with their old
masters. AZ Was TINS respect some what like the
treaty stipulation tnat we often make, agreeing
that the nation treating with az shall be put on
the footing OF the most favored nations which,
while IL leaves as at full liberty 10 make what new
treaties or enact what new laws we please, ooiges
II was the desIgn OF the amendments, and. their
whole design, 10 raise the freedmen 10 an equaity
with their ate masteIs before the law and TO give
the blacks all the rights winch the whites enjoyed.
There as no complaint that the whites we're OPP
10 remedy. TheJ did nor need new guarantees
AID none were intended Tor them. Tue complaint
90 0e relieved, tue mischief 10 be remedIed, the
Iuatantee 10 be provided. had respect 10 The
ateIy subject race and 10 that alone. In saying
his we OF course leave out Of v1ew the temporary
provisions respecting the treatment OF the rebels
and the rebel deot SO understood, tuere Is sym
ne ~ IN the wuOle OF the amendments; they are
Ill concerned to one plan aud carry out one great
purpose. The general question now Is,
WHAT MAY CONGRESS DO
60 enforce the Ironioitlons ihus directed against
the states! The particular question q on which
thls case depends is whether, UNDER color OF en-
forcing the prohibitions and before any state has
rloiAted them, Congress can anticipate and pre-
rent their violation 0y taxing into IT'S own hands
the regulation Of the whole sublect luis may be
undoubtedly one way OF accom- pllshIng tue object.
Iou eau prevent q thing being done IA a manner
dlspeasing 10 you BY DONG II ourselL Congress
regulation by ltseu making All the regu atoms.
Sut Is that the lair purport u tie authortyg Is u
she legitimate Interpretation OF charter Of led
eral government. % which power "a Carefully
pArtitIoned between the Unlon and the states TO
cay that II tie former bias authority 10 prevent
Ine letter from doing wrong thing II may pre-
vent their DONG anything Dy GOING every thing
tGeIf The prohibitions OF these
AMENDMENTS or TnE LAST DECADE
are reasonably Gear: their general purpose is IN
mtstaka0ie they are lAid upon the states, aud
Congress Las express power " enIofce tHem ~
appropriate legislation. SO much Is inUlst utable.
Ihe dispute Oegius when the VOID appropriate IS
10 be Interpreted. WHAT Is ana what Il nVt APP
proOriHle legisRtions And who 10 10 Judge ~ tue
spprOprateuessf These are the cardinal Ques-
lions upoa wnlca hinges the decision oil the pres
eut cause, AID Win u the determination ia no
small measure 81 tse fature " the country. Toe
first observation 20 be made T., that tue amend
menrs being made part VI the constitution are .
be construed Ia connection VITA the original parts
81 IL, and according To the wen understood aud
ong established In ter probation OF that instrument
Congress Is. wltam certain limits, the extensive
Judge OF tue appropriateness Of It's legislation 70
The end designed; but that there are sucn limits,
AID beyond tnem Congress may not pasf
WHAT CONGNESs CANNUT DO.
Mr.. Field here argued that Congress could not
under color or preventing state rom doing GER
tain tn.ngs destroy tue state or any OF It's essen
vial attr.Dates. Wneu, therefore. he continued,
u rs said, as II olten Is, mat Congress Is
the exclusive Judge OF the means to be
chosen Tor ATTAINING az enc, the proposition Is
20 De admitted only with the TWO quaAncatiOns
mat nave Teen mentioned. 50 il was said by
Madison. Hamilton and Jay In the Fedsrdlist; 50
il was sad ~ Hamilton In nls argument or a