New-York tribune., 1875-01-25
THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT
AN IMPORTANT ISSUE BEFORE THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT.

ACT BELONGS THE STATES.
IrRoy THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT Tgg rnfBUssI
WASHINGTON, Jan. ga case has just been
argued In the United States Supreme Court involving
tho construction and Interpretation OF the Fnteenth
Amendment to the Constitution Of the United States
which OF unusual interest and importance. touching
at once the highest political rights OF the euzen. and
questioning the position OF the great boundary between
the powers OF the United States and those Of the ses"r
states. The defendants. Hiram Reese aud Mathew
Fdnshee were indicted under the Enforcement aot OF
May 81 1870 in the Circuit Court OF the United States
for the District OF Kentucky questions at Issue
arose upon of division Of opinion between
the Judges OF the Circuit and District Courts. Tho ia
dIctment charges:
l. That in January. 1879 the defendants being inspect
ors at a certain municipal election in Lexington, XIV.
refused TO allow Garner citizen o. African Co
scent otherwise quoel to vote because he produced
no evidence OF his having paid certsn municipal tax
That the defendants agreed that they would rot re-
ceive thu OF voter or African descent uness
he should produce evidence Of his having paid certain
municipal that their purpose was to prevent men, on
accou mt Of race from voting and that In accord
ance with such agreement. they demanded OF one Oar
ner citizen OF African descent otherwise qualified to
produce such evidence ana hs not doing go they
refused on account OF his and color TO allow him
TO vote.
g. That ono Robinson, tax collector WAS onarged
with the duty OF giving czsns an opportunity OF pay
act OF Assembly such payment was necessary dnaIu
cation for voting at municipal elections there tha'
Robinson refused account OF Garuers race ana
to allow him pay such tax, whereupon dirher pro
sened to the defendants affidavit stating hs oner 70
pay such tax. and asking to be allowed TO Votei anu
this they refused.
After stating facts about Robinson and the pre-
sentaon OF the affidavit above. this count alle9es
that the defendants refused TO receive the vote on a
count OF Garners race and color
The frat count therefore does not charge the dfend
ants with refusing tho vote OF citizen OF African de-
scent on account hi and coor, but only on ac
count of his declining TO comply with the " uhia~ih
reourement" to produce evidence OF his having phid
certain tax Tue second count charges them WIN
making such requirement on account OF hlS race ane
color Tie taird, again, does not charge the Speea
refus to have been account Of Garner Idoo su
color while the fourth does charge the refusal OF lh'
allowance Of the sfldavit equivalents for Tax
receipt aud the consequent refusal of tue Voe 20 ua's
been on account OF race and color.
The following the questions certified:
First: As to each Of the counts respectively n,.
whether the count is good Gnd sufficient on the q mu
rer thereto under the Act Of Congress approved May
81 1870; M whether the facts stated IN tue count consu
ue all oense uuder the fourth section OF the act ls
whether .sS sgapt sets forth az Ohense punishable ~
| nSictment of which this Court has jurisdiction.
s,,ond As 10 the first and second counts only. %.
ie,o r the fourth section OF the Act OF May 81 1870,
"a nast, H. onaily valid, II 1t be so construed as not 70
rocu,ra that IN Linderins delaying. and oostrncing
tbe voter should be - account OF his race ooof or
previous condition OF servitule; To-. '"o
BY the Inspectors Of Election Of the righ, " '
citizen OF tue state OF the African race, who 0oaA
TO yOte such denial being account OF race COLOR
or previous condition OF serytude, Is ofense within
the true meaning Of the third fonrth sections OF the
Enforcement Act. approved May 81, 1870
Third: As to the fourth count only Watcher the pres
entation by the said Wm Garner OF his affidavit de-
scrbed in said fourth count. equivalent to payment
thereof the prerequisite to qdahfy
or enEltle the aflaDt to vote At the eIoctiou
The questions certified therefore require conifera
ton OF the Fifteenth Amendment, and ao OF several
sectlous Of the Enforcement act Of Nay 81, bIJ The
Fifteenth Ameu1mont q as folows:
1 Tire right Of citlzons or TIE United States 10 vOts
shall not bo denlod ABRIDGED by the Untd States OF
any state account OF race coo o. previous coa-
q Tne Congress shall have power enforce this art
Gle by appropriate legislation
The following is synopsis OK the trs four sections OF
the act OF May 81. 1919;
The rst section il merely declaratory OF the meaning
OF the amendment The second operates upon State
Ureimnary redusites for the enjoyment the tight
VOTE registration the receipt of taxes &C. and
tue neglect OF such duty renders them Ia0ie to an ln
dctment and, also, to civil suit for gwen pensiV oy
any party injured. The thr sccton pursuing tho
topic the sectou provides that Whenever by
the wrOngul act or OMISSION ~ sich oucer cltlzen
has been prevented from performing sncn preliminary
requisite II shall 10: purposes OF voting he equvalens
formance by bio, and uD0n ms producing 10 Tue
tnsnrctors of an election az affidavit stating such 0er
to erform &c any inspector refusing allow to
shall be liable, above, to civil sult ana also TO
an Indictment. Tue fourth section. in the same way,
subjects 10 a civil suit and Indictment any one who
uDlLwrully binders, &c, any citizen from qualifying
himself for voting Or IRON voting.
II was argued by counsel rtpresentng tho Govern
ment % that he words IN the amendment, " by the
United states by any stae are not words of lins-
ton upon the power OF Congress; that they were
intended to comprehend the two GJyernmonts' ana all
powers agencies and instrumentates, private as wen
as publl within their respective Jurisdictions; CD
that the power conferred upon Congress to enforce TINS
article ne essarly implies compusioD, and must mean
the exercise OF power directly upon persons and nos
upon AID that they substituted for the
,rr a rrry into cN ca. ion" Ia Sacon g. Article I.
OF tho original Constitution. and there'Oro that
1t Wac Intended MAKE the power OF Congrcss
cOp,pre hrnSiye tuan il otherwise would have
oeo W that the province OF Congress 10 drtermiDe
what Is "s,propuate legi'l on." the appropri-
cnc,s relates Of facts which the courts have
means OF fasccIannG i IL turtAer argued that inc
acton Of state Officers within their Jurisdiction, Nheter
they do or administer the law correctly Is action
81 the state, and that ~ the INSPECTORS Of election are
vested with the power OF receiving ana e1'erg Votes
they do 20 hy the viii OF taat state, which therefore 10
responsible morally 50 far "a the voter Is only her cit
zen Legally tar as he Is the citizen oil ahOtnef
Il is arsued by defendants counsel that the language
OF the Aunt ndmeut, the right 70 vote shall not DO
denied abridged Is the appropriate ansnh9S % OF n
hibiLOn-a mandate directed 20 tho pohtca oVu'os IN
right Assuming. therefore. that the fiteenth Amend
ment is inhibition 10 the States ana thc COh-
gress ana not direct grant OF the right OF suffrage TO
tue citizens Of the United States, u Nbecomes necessary
20 determine whether the second rd' and fourth SEQ
tions Of the Enforcement act are appropriate eson
within the meaning Of the Constitution ~ Is sIs9
claimed a. the States severAhy ara inVestea
with the exclusive right regulate and control suf
frage except IN the Territories ana the DisIIot1 1t
because IL attempts 10 provide code Of registration aud
election laws Tor the States IL was also sguo uns .ne
election officers, were charged WIN tue
duty ofdcharging cerfan functions wnch were III eit
nature Judicial, and that II they believed tho oalt
faxf haVa