National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-04-06
THE GRANT-PARIsH CASE IN THE SU-
PREKR COURT.

The Supreme Court of the United States
has been for several days past engaged in
hearing arguments in the Grant (La) par
ish intimidation and murder case, which
comes up on certificate of division of opIn-
ion from the Circuit Court of Louisiana
The case is entitled "The United States,
plaintiff in error, VS.. VIM. J. Cruikshank
land others, defendants in error" and has
been argued, as heretofore reported in the
court columns of this paper, by Solicitor
General Phillips for the plaintiff in error,
and by Judge r. H. Mari of Louisiana,
David Dudley Field of New York and P.
Phillips of this city. On Thursday the ar
gument of the case was concluded by most
able and exhaustive argument by Attorney
General Williams. The case grew up in
this wise Some hundred White Leaguers,
residing in Grant parish and about the town
Of Alexandria, Louisiana, attempted to
overawe and iRtimidate the colored voters
of that neighborhood. They carried mat
tiers with a high hand, and in their process
of intimidation killed Alexander Tillman.
The leaders Of the Leaguers-W. 1. Cruik-
shank, W. D. Irwin and John P. Hadnot-
with some seventy of their confederates-
were presented by the grand jury of the
United States Circuit Court for Louisiana.
on an indictment for ''Conspiring and band
ling together with the purpose and intent
"to prevent and hinder citizens of the
Omitted States in the full exercise and en-
"joyment of the rights and privileges guar
"anteed or secured to them by the Consti-
"tutIon and laws of the United States, and
"for willful murder while so conspiring
"and banded - the specific acts being
intimidation of Levi Nelson and Alexander
Tillman, and for the murder of the last
named. A trial was had in 1873, but the
jury failed to agree upon a verdict, and q
second trial took place in the early summer
of 1874, and on the 10th Of June Cruik-
shank, Hadnot and Irwin were convicted
of counts in the Indictment which
charged intimidation and murder.
The defendant thereupon filed motions
for a new trial and in arrest of judgment,
based substantially upon these grounds, viz
1st That the matters charged in the counts
Of the Indictment upon which they were
convicted do not constitute offences against
the laws Of the United States, and do not
come within the purView and meaning Of
the act of Congress approved May 81, 1870.
(the enforcement act.) I'd. Because the
matters charged do not constitute offences
cognizable in this court. Sd. Because the
offences created in the 9th section of the
enforcement act, upon which the indict-
ment was based, are not constitutionally
within the Jurisdiction of courts of the
United States, and are cognizable by State
tribunals only, and legislation therein is
among the constitutionally reserved rights
of the several States and people. 4th. Be-
cause said act is violative Of the Constitu-
ton of the United States. The other rea-
sons assigned were entirely technical.
Upon this motion Associate Justice Brad
ley and Circuit Judge Woods, who together
held the Circuit Court of the United States,
were opposed in opinion, Justice Bradley
holding the indictment to be insufficient,
and Judge Woods beng of the contrary