The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1875-04-14

newspapers that the Supreme Court
of the United States had decided this
case favorably for the prisoners.
The announcement was premature,
but we hope it will not be long before
we can congratulate our prosecuted
friends on their release from this
vexatious and partisan prosecution.
We subjoin an interesting letter to
the Cincinnati Enquirer, on the
trial:
WASHINGTON, D, c.,
April l, 1879
The case of the United States, plain
tifs in error, VS.. Cruikshank, Irwin q
Hadnot, appealed from the United States
Circuit Court for Louisiana, being what
is known as the Grant Parish cases,
which has been argued during the last
three DAYS before the Supreme Court,
is exbiting very great interest among
the menlb crs of the bar and politicians.
1t is regarded by the legal profession as
the most important case, probably, that
has ever come before the Court, as it
certainly involves the maintenance OF
the Government upon its ancient !olln-
dation, or a,radical change i'll its entire
structure, as was clearly demonstrated
by Mr.. David Dudley Field in his arsn-
ment of yes .erday.
The theory of the act of $50, and the
81, n cnI
is that Congress has the power to pre-
scribe a general code of laws for the
States, and to prescribe punishments,
etc. At the trial before the United
States Court in New Orleans, Judge
Woods ruled that the several counts OF
the indictment against the prisoners
were good in law, and charged that the
officers were indictable under the laws
Of the United States. Justice Bradley
held directly the contrary, and on this
division Of opinion. as certified, the
case comes up for final decision.
All the Judges are present at the
trial, Chief-Justice Waite presiding
The Government is represented in per-
son by its Attorney-General and Solicit
tore General. The accused by Hon. r.
II. Mari, of New Orleans; Mr.. David
Dudley Field, of New York; and Hon.
Rcverdy Johnson, of Maryland. In adj
dtion to the services of these gentle
men, Judge Campbell, formerly of the
United States Supreme Court, has filed
an elaborate brief, and Judge Black has
aided by his counsel. The question was
argued by Messrs. Field and Mari yes
terday, with much force and learning.
Mr.. Reverdy johnson opened the debate
to-day with an argument upon the
scope of the amendments, and was very
clear in showing that they did not JUS
tify the act of 1870. The address de-
rived interest from the knowledge of
Mr.. johnson, the length Of his member
ship at the bar, and the possibility that
it would be the last time he would APP
pear before it to plead.
Acknowledgement Williams spoke
some two hours in behalf of the Govern
ment side, maintaining the widest scope
of Interpretation for the amendments,
and insisting upon the most enlarged
powers for the Federal judiciary over
the lives and daily concerns of men,
though he seemed to shuhler at the
thought of the Supreme Court setting
aside an act of passionate Congress.
The speech was, however, greatly toned
down from the doctrines he took in
arguing the Kentucky case. The doe
trine Of the Slaughter-house decision
was handled very gingerly and cautio,ss-
ly, and the whole address resembles Il
loose stump harangue.
Mr.. Williams endcavorcd with success
to show that Justices Miller, Strong,
Bradley and others had at one time or
another given cOuntcnance to these
dogmas, but the interrogations put to
him during his argument by Justices
Clifford, Strong and Bradley seemed
clearly to indicate that his argument
was not favorably received by them.
On the whole, if the Court can only
be brave enough TO act Oh the case fairly
and squarely, there does not seem to be
much room for doubt that they will de-
clare the Enforcement Act of 1870 to be
unconstitutional and revolutionary.
Justice Miller and the Court seem COM
mitted to this by the SIaughtcr-house
case, though that decision applied rath-
than to Inc method Of their enforce
ment.
The present case involves both points,
and the Supreme Court Judge who, on
that occasion, might be disposed to give
the broadcast scope to the meaning of
the amendments, might still hold that
the remedies lay wholly with the State
tribunal. 1t is much to be feared, how
ever, that the Court will once more
shrink from provoking the wrath of the
Republican party. Three of the bitter
est and most extreme of tie Republican
Senators--namely, Boutwell,, Conkling
and Frelinghuysen--were in Court to-
day, evidently taking the liveliest inter-
est in the case. Mr.. Williams did not
scruple to speak Of the motives and in
tentions of the Congressman who pass
ed the amendments as furnishing a
guide to their interpretations. If the
Court should be afraid to face the music
they have way Of lodging the issue.
The indictments are of the vaguest
character, and so defective in form that
the decision can 60 off upon this ground
alone. The prisoners personally are not
believed to be in any real danger. The
great danger is that the Court will
shrink from its obvious duty, and allow
an unconstitutional and despo,ic law to
stand as the law for the people.
~~-~o~--~~-o~--~r~-~~
Texas DISAPPOINTMENT OF THE TEXAS
REAL ESTATE Notwithstanding to the
invariable custom Of postponing Draw
ings, the public will not believe they
will take place until the expected post
ponement takes place. Although liber-
ally patronized, we have not disposed
of quite all the tickets. Owing to the
above cause, together with the unprece-
denied rains and floods throughout the
entire South, as we'll as Texas, and as