Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1875-03-12
JUDGE BOND AND OUR AMEND.
EDCIES CHATTER

EDCIES CHARTER
We publish the following opinion of
Judge Bond in the Petersburg EIec-
ton cases because of the bearing it
has upon the view he will take of the
application for injunction to be heard
before him in Raleigh tomorrow:
Ia the Petersburg election cases in
the Circuit Court of the United States
Judge Hughes delivered an opinion
sustaiulng the demurrer to the lndict-
meut, on The ground that it did not
charge that the unlawful obstruction
complained of was on account of race,
color. or previous condition Of servl-
tude Judge Bond now files an ad-
verse opinion, and the case will be
certified to the Supreme Court of the
United States. After setting forth
that the questiot is whether there is
constitutional power in Congress to
protect a citizen of the United States.
qua citizen, i'll the exercise of the
elective franchise, either by force OF
the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amend
ments; holding that the 1st section of
the 1st clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment was designed to settle the
question of allegiance to the United
States forever, and arguing the mean
ing of State and United States citizen
snip, the opinion concludes as fol-
lows:
La answer to the objection that these
indictments do not allege that the OBJ
stractlOn had was done on account OF
race, color or previous condition of
servitude, it is sufficient to say that
the statute urder which the indict-
mems are drawn uses no such lan-
guage; and it is most generally sufi
cient II setting out in pleading O stat
utory offence, to use the words of the
statute creating 1t.
But If it be contended that the only
power Congress had to pass the statute
was that granted by the Fifteenth
Amendment, which prevents discrim-
lnatiOn among voters on account of
race, color, or previous condition, &c,
and authorizes appropriate Legislation
to prevent such discrimination, there
is answer to it III this, that it is i'm
possible to prove, though the fact may
be so, if body of colored men in
South Carolina assault and beat fifty
white people at the polls and prevent
their voting, and at the same time
knock two colored people down, that
this Was done on account of race or
color. Congress thought to cut the
thing by the roots, and enacted what
is really and practically the only ap-
propriate legislation, any person who
has seen the efforts to enforce this
section must know, that no person
shall disturb another at an election to
prevent his exercise of the franchise;
= ha, .far loo hnI If
he can do it from no motive he cannot
do it because of race, color, or previ-
Gus condition, &c.
And from these considerations we
have drawn the following conclusions:
1st. That by the 14th Amendment
to the Constitution the people have
provided citizenship to the United
States direct, positive and paramount,
springing from birth within its juris-
dtction, or by statutory naturalization.
I'd. That what the States have
claimed to do by virtue of their sover-
eIgu power over their citizens, the
Uuited States may do over it's citizens
by virtue of its sovereign power and
direct relationship thus established.
Sd. That while the 14th amend ment,
III furtnerance of this view, declares
that no State shall make or enforce any
law contrary to this provision, it like
wise dec ares that Congress shall en-
force the amendment by appropriate
legislation. And that AS Congress
cannot punish State qud State, it is
appropriate legislation within the
meaning of the statute to attain its
ends, /. E, the protecti of the citi-
zen in his right to vote; by Furnishing
the individuals who obstruct him in
It's exercise.
And that even under the Fifteenth
Amendment, where experience has
shown the obstruction of voters on ac-
count of race and color cannot be, in
the judgment of Congress, otherwise
prevented, it is appropriate Legislation
to provide by statute that no such OBJ
struction shall take place at all.
And that this construction of the
14th and 18th amendments does not
effect the rights of the States to de-
fine the rights of cltizedship, nor does
it draw into the jurisdiction of the
United States Courts the question OF
the invasion of the rights Oh persons
or property, as such. L. concerns
only the rights which distinguish per
sons as citizens, and which they hold
IN that character.