The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-04-02
BY TELEGRAPH.
WASHINGTON.

w ASHlNGlON.
WASHINGTON, April 1.-The debt statement
shows deere Sc Of over So 500, 600.
Coin in the Treasury Ssh COO, 900. Cur
rency S5l 100000.
Postal stamps sold during the present qnar
ter exceed those for the quarter ending De
cember, over quarter OF a million.
The argument in the Grant parish case
will concluded by Reverdy johnson and At.
torney General Williams.
exclusive of the payments made on the in
terest or principal Of the public debt during
March wss $l2, 300 COB.
THE SUPREME COUXT-GRANT PARISH CASE
WAsH1SGroN, April 1.-The Supreme Cour,
was occupied to-day in the hearing Of argu
ments in the celebrated Grant Parish case,
Involving the constitutionality of the En-
forcement Act Of May 81, 1870. Solicitor.
General Phillips addressed the court in
behalf Of the Government. and Messrs Il. II.
Mari, of Louisiana, and David Dudley Field,
OF New York, in behalf of the defendants.
The argument of Mr.. Phillips was OF legal
and technical nature entirely; contending
that the United States Congress had the power
to pass laws to enforce the provisions of the
Constitutional Amendments, and that the in
dictment in the Grant parish case was legal
and regular, and not defective, as claimed In
the lower court. Mr.. Mari and Mr.. Field
added very much to the interest of their legal
arguments by considering also the political
questions involved.
Mr.. MARI instanced the fact that all the
amendments to the Constitution from the first
to the eleventh had been intended to prohibit
the General Government from the exercise of
certain powers. The thirteenth, fourteenth,
and fifteenth amendments only restricted the
States from exercising certain powers. The
rights Of the States remained as before with
the exception of the restrictions contained in
these amendments.
The amendments were leveled, not against
individuals but against the States. Congress
under them had no power to enforce or at
tempt to enforce punitive measures against
individuals in State. He said to the Court
that the continuance OF the State govern
ments and the liberties of the people were ut
stake in their decision.
MIR. Fields argument was eloquent and i'm
pressive. He said the whole purpose and
motive of the late amendments was to raise
the freedmen to an equality with the whites
When the war was over and its results made
plain there were two courses open one was
to take the blacks specifically under the pro-
lection of the Federal government, and the
other was the course which was adopted, to
declare that the States, in their undoubted
power to regulate their own Affairs should
not do certain things.
The amendments all conceded the plenary
power Of the States in certain matters which
had always pertained 10 them. If it was
otherNise-if the view of the other side was
to prevail-then the whole domain of per
soDal and political rights was transferred to
the Federal Government.
the amendments gave Congress the power
to carry out their provisions by appropriate
legislation. Appropriate is word of lin ia
ton, and the legislation enacted must not be
of nature prohibited by other portions OF
the Constitutions; prohibited either positively
or by implication IN this connection. He re-
ferred to the decision Of the Supreme Court
multiplying the act of Congress taxing the sal-
aries of State judges, which the court held to
be implicitly uncons itutional.
The object OF the Constitution is not to
build up great central government at Wash
ing on, but to preserve the rights of all The
members OF that government. He also al
luded to the fact of all the earlier amend
ments to the Constitution being intended to
prevent the encrOAchments OF the Federal
power on the rig hts of the Safes The
natural language OF the late amendments
act.
He maintained that the plain inference is
that the States must do some act to abridge
The rights and immunities guaranteed by the
amendments before Congress can undertake
to enact any legislation. The Constitution
said no State should pass an er post fdcto law.
Here were prohibitlons to the powers OF the
State, just as in late amendments, but Con-
,ress had never dr. AIMED Of undertaking to
enact Legislation on these subjects.
This was too p ain to be answered, and IN
action by State Is no ground for Congress
sional action. Pennsylvania and Massachu-
'etts had for long time no courts of equiy;
would any one undertake to say thai Con-
,ress could have provided courts of equity
or those States? The whole duty OF Con
or enforcing the nullity OF any State laws in
lerogation OF them; to stop thu execution OF
uch laws.
THE KENTUCKY CASE.
Justice Miller asked Mr. Field if his argu-
nent was correct, ii Congress had no ri hit to
,a>s any affirmative legislation, what remedy
you'll have accrued to thu Kentucky negrCesl
whose cases were recently before the court?
Mr.. Field SAID he did not know the case
MIR. Justice Bradley explained that the
egIOtS III peeu ucPE'cu VI lue Tlpn! 10
ote through the neglect or refusal Of the
tate officers to take from them the poll tax
;hich they had rendered, and the negroes
ad sought their remedy under the Enforce
lent act. |
Mr.. Justice Miller said the State had passed |
o law deaying the right to these men, aud,
therefore,, under the view of MIR. Field they |
'ould be without any redress.
Mr.. Field SAID they had the same remedy
8 white men. They could enter their suit in
10 State courts for damages. He said, also,
lat if eight hundred thOus md voters could
OF secure the ri ;hts to which they had been
eclared, then that IS the best argument tn It
1ey are not worthy of them. Ii the court.
9 said, aajudged this Enforcement act to
g appropriate legislation, then there is no
nd to the Legislation which Congress may
Il. mpt.
Perhaps such States as New York, Ohio and
need not be alarmed by this, but
lere were many Of the smaller States which
ould be crushed between the upper and
ether milestone. Ii you assert this power in
onpress, then the States hold all the right,