The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-04-03
THE ENFORCEMENT ACT.

Inc SIKH BeCtlOn Oh llle euioICtuieut uCt,
so-called-approved May 81, 1S70-enacts
that if two or more persons shall "band or
conspre together" with the intent to vio-
late any of the provisions of that act, or to
"injure, Cypress, threaten, or intimidate
any citizen with the intent to prevent or
hinder ,his free exercise and enjoyment
OF any right or privilege granted or secured
to him by the constitution or laws of the |
United States, or because of his having ex- |
ercised the same, such persons shall be |
deemed guilty of felony and, on convic-
ton, shall be fined or imprisoned, or both
in the discretion of the court. BY a sub
sequent section, exclusive jurisdiction, in
this class of cases. was conferred on the
United States courts. Under this section,
three men-Cruikshank, Irwin and Had
moi, were indicted in the circuit court for
the district of Louisiana, charging them
with a conspiracy TO prevent duly quail
fed electors from voting at elections in
that state, which was one of the acts that
the law endeavored to regulate and the
court being divided in opinion, the case
passed to the supreme court of the Uuited
States for final determination. This cause
was decided, Wednesday, and the full text
of the decision is before u.s. The decision
is of absorbing interest as the settlement of a
mere political question, and of great inn
| portance as declaring anew, that which so
many are fain to forget, that the federal
government is one of limited powers, that
the state have some rights which even
congress is bound to respect, and as indi-
eating that the national constitution is still
to be respected and obeyed.
The first point made by the court is that
the constitution, while it prohibits con-
gress from abridgng the rights of the people
to peacably assemble, confers upon it no
power to define the purposes for which
it may so assemble, TO protect citizens
in going to and from such assemblages, or
to superintend the conduct of citizens SO
assembled, or to take cognizance of such
as care unlawful or tumultuous, or which
may become riotous or dangerous to the
people of the state" These are all, the
court says, concerns which affect the
''order, tranquility, and police of the state
and the constitution, either expressly or by
implication, does not grant to the general
government any power "of control, super
intendence, allowance, or prevention Of
such assemblies. Passing from this point
the court say, that the right of the people
to keep and bear arms for lawful purpose
: cannot be lnfringed; that such lawful pur
pose is always to be presumed and tina
the right so to bear arms is not derived
from the constitution or granted by tn
general government, nor has the Unite'
States been charged to ''guard or guarante
it !" and that any interference with tina
, | right is not an offense against the Unite
!, States. A state, it says, "has the same un
"deniable jurisdiction oyer all persons an
, "things within Its territorial limits as an
"foreign nation, when that jurisdiction
"not surrendered to the general govern
"ment." Passing from the consideratio
of the constitution as it was prior to 1861
it proceeds to consider the effect of the RI
cent amendments thereto.
II The fourteenth amendment does not al
thorize this indictment, because the stat
of Louisiana, as state, has passed no La
aprioglils tho rights of citizens, and thel
is, therefore, No breach of the constitutio
e or its amendments by tile state " to who,
the people of the United States directc
the commands of the fourteenth amcnt
u ment," and as the object of the ament
ment was 'to restrain states, not the in
y, habitants of states" This being so, VIII,
would have been the force or vitality of I'll
'force bill, even if it had passed d? I'll
enforcement act is mildness itself in con
is | parison with the proposed force bill, an
;. | yet congress would endeavor to legislat
n | upon the subject, and, in the endeavo
It | wasted much of the time that was needle
: for, and should have been devoted to ethe
e matters. Is there then no danger of /" III
d constitutional legislation Let the fore
# bill, to secure the passage of which BE
:, Butler welded the party lash with sue
d undisguised pleasure, answer. Is there n
IS danger of Capitalization Hear what I'll
e supreme court of the United States says
lie 1.-The consequence of conclusion bein
al adopted as law, that the provisions {
3 the constitution are addressed to eac
II and every inhabitant, would be the entil
Is subversal of the institutions of the state
1 4 ~
# "whole land into consolidated empir
v "whose authority and processes wou
10 wholly disregard the limits and laws
=. the states" Then there is danger {
h consolidation, is there not always pr
,e yiding congress could have its own way.