The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1875-04-07
GRANT PARISH PRISONERS CASE.

| 49, -!l tat
The argument in the Supreme
Court of the United States of the
celebrated case Of United States, US.
ICruikshank and others arising from
the eaeute at Colfax in 1878 is going
Lon. Messrs. Revery johnson, John
A. Campbell, Dudley Field and r.
H. Mari are for the defence. While
the Attorney General was speaking,
several of the Judges interrupted him
by inquiries.
Mr.. Justice Bradley said: Suppose
Congress should enact q law making
it felony to steal the property of
another; Congress has the undoubted
fright to punish the stealing of the
property Of the Government, Or Of
property in the service of the Gov
eminent, but beyond that the law
would be unconstitutional. Now,
when law is so framed that one part
is constitutional and another uncon-
stitutional, and the two are so blend
led together as to be impossible to
sever, can you hold one part consti,
tutional and the other part uncon-
stitutional9
The Attorney General replied that
the law could be enforced rs to those
offences which it is admitted are
within the legislative power of Con-
gress to provide for. AS to the pow
err assumed in the enforcement act
to provide penalties for interference
with voters at Congressional cleo
tions, the very existence of the Gov
ernment depends upon these cleo
tions. If Congress has no power to
protect the voters, then the White
League of Louisiana, minority of
the people, can stand around the
polls and prevent the majority from
voting.
Mr.. Justice Clifford said in his
State, Maine, the colored man always
had the right to vote. He would ask
the Attorney General whether, ftwo
indictments were found of conspiracy
one to prevent a colored man, and the
other white man from voting, would
the Circuit Court of the United States
have jurisdiction of both casesp
The Attorney General - They
would in the case of the black man.
I don't contend that they would in
: the case of the white man.
Mr.. Justice Cliford-Then colored
men have more rights in the United
States courts than white men.
The Attorney -General-That does
not follow; the constitution does not
confer upon white people the right to
vote, but it does upon colored people,
and thence the power Of Congress ari
ses to protect them in that right. He
disclaimed the assertion that negroes
have greater rights than whites, but
these amendments took them from a
condition of slavery, guaranteed to
them equal rights with the white
man and undertook to protect them
against all determinations. He
would ask to modify the answer he
had made to the question of Mr.. JUS
tice Clifford, and say that an indict-
ment for depriving white man OF
the right to vote at Congressional
elections could be maintained in the
United States court, but he would
, not insist that it could be maintained
if the deprivation of the right to vote
was at State election. .,,7,.,,
Mr.. Justice Strong asked if a con:
spiracy was formed to prevent a man
from voting because he was the son
of an Irishman, would the United
States Circuit Courts have jurisdic
7 ton of that2 It would certainly be
race discrimination.
The Attorney General said he hat
no doubt tn at Congress had the
. power to provide for such case, bu'
he did not say that it would come
. under this act.
Justice Strong-Suppose the Stat,
Of South Carolina, where the MAORI
ty Of the people are colored, should
g change its constitution and say tina
, no white man should vote, would {
: remedy against that lie in the United
. States courts?
e The Attorney General said he:hat
j, no doubt that it would. His idea, ii
: the main, Of these amendments wa
. that any and every right guaranteed
, by them may be protected in tn
t courts of the United States.
q BAIT hook, Pott hook, if 20,
: will, with the possibility of a pun, ant
!. how the paragrapnists will bite. Som
matter of fact man will lead off ssMr