The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1876-03-29
JUSTICE BRADLEY's DECISION.

=
lish for the benefit of those who may be un-
familiar with the points made by that able
jurist and most righteous judge:
will now proceed to examine the several
counts in the indictment, and endeavor to
test their validity by the principles which
have been laid down. These have been so
fully enunciated and explained, that very
brief examination of the counts will suffice.
The first count is for conspiracy to inter-
fere with the right "to peacefully assemble
together with each other, and with other citi-
zsns, for a peaceable and lawful purpose.
This right is guaranteed in the first amend
ment to the Constitution, which declares that
Congress shall make no law abridging the
right of the people peaceabiy to assemble and
to petition the government for redress Of
grievances"
Does the Disturbance of the power of Con.
gress to prevent the assembling OF the people
amount to an affirmative power to punish In
dividuals for disturbing assemblies? This
would be strange inference. That is the
prerogative of the States. Il belongs to the
preservation of the pubic peace and the
fundamental rights of the people. The peo-
pie of the States do not ask Congress to pro-
tect the right but demand that it shall not
interfere with it.
Has anything since occurred to give Con-
gress legislative power over the su tject mat
ter? the Fourteenth Amendment declares
that no State shall by law abridge the privi-
leges or immunities of citizens OF the United
States Grant that this prohibition now pre-
vents the States from interfering with the
right to assemble, as being one OF such priv
ileges and immunities, still, does it give Con-
gress the power to legislate over the subject !?
Power to enforce the amendment is all that is
given to Congress. If the amendment is not
violated, it has no power over the subject
The second count, which is for conspiracy
to interfere with certain citizens in their right
to bear arms, is open to the same criticism as
the first.
The third count charges conspiracy to de-
prive certain citizens of African descent of
their lives and liberties without due process
of law. Every murderer and robber does
this. Congress surely is not vested with
power to legislate for the suppression and
punishment of all murders, rObOeries and as
saults committed within the States.
In none of these counts is there any aver
nent that the State had, by its laws, inter-
ferred with any of the rights referred to, or
that it had attempted to deprive the citizens
of life, liberty, or property without due pro-
cess OF law, or that it did not afford to all the
equal protection of the laws. The third count
can not be sustained.
The fourth count charges a conspiracy to
deprive certain colored citizens, OF African
descent, OF the free exercise and enjoyment of
the right and privilege to the full and equal
benefit of all laws and proceedings for the
security Of persons and property which is en-
joyed by white citizens
The right and privilege to interfere with
the exercise of which is here alleged to have
been the object Of the conspiracy, is not con-
tanned in the Constitution in express terms.
The Fourteenth Amendment, amongst other
things, declares that no State shall deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal pro-
lection of the laws. But.the indictment does
not allege that this has been done. The
count manifestly refers to the rights secured
by the civil rights bill of April 8, 1866, which
has already been referred to.
That act, as we have seen, expressly de-
clares that all citizens, of every race and
color, without regard to any previous oondi-
ton Of slavery or involuntary servitude, shall
have the same right in every State and Terri
to full and equal benefits OF all laws and pro-
ceedings for the security of person and prop
erty as is enjoyed by white citizens
The conspiracy charged in the fourth count
is Q conspiracy to interfere with tie free ex-
ercise and enjoymen of this right.
But the count does not contain any allega-
ton that the defendants committed the acts
complained Of with o design to deprive the
injured persons of their rights on account of
their race. color, or previous condition of
servitude. TINS, as we have seen, is an essen
tial ingredient in the crime to bring it within
the cognizanee of the United States au-
thorities Herhaps such a design may
be inferred from the allegation that the
mi, ~ - kha
that the inteno was to deprive them of the ex-
ercise and enjoyment OF the rights enjoyed by
white citizenA But it ought not to have been
left to infereupe; it should have been alleged.
On this grotnd, therefore, think this count
is defective AID can not be sustained.
It is also detective on account of the vague
ness and generality Of the chargs-"to pre-
vent and hinder [them] in the free exercise
and enjoyment OF their several and respective
right and privilege to the full and equal bene-
fit of all laws and proceedings then and there
etc. 1t seems to me that such
general and weeping charge. without any
specification Of any laws or proceedings. does
not amount to the averment of Q criminal act
1t is not merely informal, it is insufficient.
The fifth and eighth counts are open to the
same objection of vagueness and generality as
the fourth, and for that reason neither OF
them can. in my judgment, be sustained.
The sixth count charges q conspiracy to
prevent and hinder certain citizens of the
United States, who were of African descent
and persons Of color, in the exercise and en-
joyment of their right to vote at any election
to be thereafter held in the State of Louisiana.
or in the parish of Grant, Knowing they had
such right to vote. A conspiracy to hinder a
person from exercising his right to vote at any
election is made indictabls by the fourth sec
ton of the enforcement act; also by the sixth
section. read in connection with the first
Over the general subject of the right to
vote IN the ates, and the regulation OF said
right, Congress, as we have seen, has no
power to legislase. The Fifteenth Amend.
ment relates only to Determinations on &C
count of race, color, and previous condition
of servitude, and, as we have before shown,
is prohibition against the making OF such
determinations
The law on which this count is founded is
not confined to cases of discrimination above
referred to. Il is general and universal in its
application. Such law is not supported by