The Portland daily press., 1875-04-03
WASHINGTON.
The Constitutionality of the Enforcement
Act.

ACT.
WASHINGTON, April 2-Durng the argu-
mcnt before the Supreme Court in the Grant
Parish case involving the constitutiOnality of
the enforcement act, Attorney General VIII
liams contended that by the 18th and l4th
amendments and the civil bill the people OF the
United States intended to secure to the colored
man under the protection of the general gov
ernment the right to make contracts, to sue to
hold property and the various other rights OF
citizenship. On the other side it was contend
ed that the 14th amendment was nothing more
than an empty form aud amounts to nothing,
but is empty and vain words. Even before the
adoption of the late amendments Congress had
the power to protect the right to vote for Pres
idential electors.
Justice Bradley said: Suppose Congress
should enact law making it a felony to steal
the property of another? Congress has I'M
doubted right to punish the stealing of property
of the government or OF property in the services
of the government, but beyond that the law
would be unconstitutional Now when law
is SO framed that one part is constitutional and
other unconstitutional, and the two are SO
blended as to be impossible to sever, can you
hold one part constitutional and the other I'M
conStitutional?
The Attorney General replied that the law
could be enforced as to those offences which it
is adj itted are within the legitimate power OF
Congress to provide for. As to the power as
sumed in the enforcement act to provide penal
ties for interference with voters at COMPRESSION.
government depends on these selections. If
Congress has no power to protect the voters
then the white league of Louisiana, minority
of the people, can stand around and prevent
the majority from voting. The 10th amend
ment confers upon the colored people the right
to vote, and unless Congress has power to en-
force that guarantee it is of no value whayer.
Justice Clifford said that in his state (Maine)
the ceored men always had the right to vote.
He would ask the Attorney General whether
If tvVO indictments were found OF Conspiracy,
one to prevent coored man and the other a
white man from voting, would the Circuit
courts of the United States have jurisdiction
of both cases.
The Attorney General disclaimed asserting
that negroes have greater rights than the whites,
but these amendments took the negroes from
condition of slavery, guaranteed them equal
rights with the white man, and undertook to
protect them against all determinations. An
Indictment for depriving white man of the
right to vote at a Congressional election 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
a state election.
Justice Strong asked if a conspiracy was
formed to prevent man voting because he was
a son of Irishman, would the United States
Courts have jurisdiction of that? 1t would GER
tainy be race discrimination.
The Attorney Gederal said he had no doubt
Congress had power to provide for such case,
but he did not say it would come under this
act.
Justice Strong-Suppose the state of South
Carolina where majority of the tpeopie are
coored should change its constitution and say
that no white man should vote, would a reme-
dy against that lie in the United States courts?
The Attorney General said hs had no doubt
it would. His idea in the main of these amend
ments was that among every right guaranteed
by them may be protected in the courts of the
limited States