The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-01-14
Are the Enforcement Acts Constitu-
tiOnul!

The laws of Congress, commonly called En-
federal government authority to arrest, try
and punish citizens for offences or crimes of
which, until those acts were passed. only the
local or State authorities were supposed to
have cognizance-such as breaches of the
peace and injuries of different kinds to indi-
viduals, contrary to the local laws OF the
State where the offence was charged
Under these acts of Congress federal mar
shals and their subordinates in some of the
Southern States act as federal police, and with
the power to summon to their aid federal
troops and to bring those whom they choose
to arrest for trial into federal courts. Under
these same acts of Congress the Presidents
interference in elections has taken place, and
he appears to have held himself justified or
perhaps bound to interpose the federal arm
on all occasions when his partisans de-
manded it of him.
These acts were adopted by Congress with
the purpose of enforcing the thirteenth,
fourteenth and fifteenth constitutional amend
ments. At the time of their adoption the
country was in disorder, the majority IN Con-
gress was not inclined to pay very strict re-
gard to constitutional limitations, and the
country, alarmed and irritated at the dis
orders in the Southern States, was ready to
support any measures OF repression, no
matter how harsh or of what doubtful const-
nationality President Grant spoke the peo-
pies mind when he said, ''Let US have
peace" and it was generally believed that it
needed the strong arm of the federal govern
ment to preserve peace
Nevertheless, persons who had not lost
their self-possession, and among them many
of the ablest lawyers Of the country, believed
these acts to be unconstitutional, and this not
only because they violated the general princi-
Piles of the constitution. but because, as was
held. they were not authorized or justified by
the terms of the very amendments they were
intended to carry into effect Nor can any
one who carefully reads these amendments
continue in doubt on the question. The
thirteenth amendment simply prohibits
slavery, and its effect is to make void any State
law which should attempt to re-establish this
condition. The fourteenth amendment ESQ
far as 1t concerns this law declares oil per-
sons born or naturalized in the United States
to be citizens not only of the United States,
but of the State in which they live, and for
dds any State to abridge the privileges or
immunities of any of its citizens, or to de-
prive any person of life liberty or property
without due process Of law, or deny to any
person equal protection Of the laws. The fif-
teenth amendment forbids the United States
and the States to deny or abridge the right to
vote on account Of race, color or previous
condition.
All three of the amendments deal only with
States, refer only and clearly to State laws,
and to the acts Of State authorities under
State laws, and do not provide or authorize,
in any way, that the federal power shall inter-
fere-otherwise than it was previously
allowed to interfere to assert it's own rights
in the local affairs of the States. The spirit
Of these amendments is consonant with the
general spirit of the constitution in this par
ticular and they do not pretend to increase
the scope of the power or authority of the
federal government in the least Their adop-
ton did not, therefore, in any way change
the form or nature of our government; but
left it precisely where it was BEFORE except
that these amendments made the States
powerless to re-establish slavery, or to deny
equal rights, civil and political, to all their
people.
We make these statements with the more
confidence because of a recent decision of
Mr.. Justice Bradley, of the Supreme Court,
given in the Grant parish case, in the Loui-
siana Circuit Court. In this case four citi-
zens of Louisiana were indicted under the
Enforcement act, charged with having felo-
niously banded together to intimidate certain
persons of African descent, to deprive them
of certain constitutional rights specified, the
right to peaceably assemble, to bear arms to
be protected in life, liberty, &C., to vote, &c.
The persons charged with these offences were
brought, not before State court, but directly
before the United States Court, being arrested
by United States officers. There was no pre-
tence that the State laws denied or deprived
them of any Of the specified rights.
MI Justice Bradley, in his opinion on
motion to arrest judgment, very deliberately
discusses the terms of the amendment and of
the Enforcement act, and concludes that the
act is unconstitutional, that the amendment
gives no such power to Congress as it as
sumed in passing the law, and that pract-
cally, the Enforcement act is null and void
Here is his language:-'If these views are
correct there can be no constitutional legisla-
ton Of Congress for directly enforcing the
privileges and immunties of citizens of the
United States, by original proceedings in the
Courts OF the United States, where the only
constitutional guarantee of such privileges
and immunities is that no State shall pass any
law to abridge them, and where the State has
passed no law adverse to them, but, on the
contrary, has passed laws to sustain and en-