National Republican., 1876-03-29
TIE LATE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

1nL L11E OUU d ;.
The Supreme Court day before Yester-
day, through Chief Justice Waite, deliv-
| cred IFS decision in the cases arising under
the enforcement act of May 81, 1870 The
substance of the decision is that as to cleo
tions,' Congress cannot legislate generally
on the regulation of elections in the States;
that except in elections for Senators and
Representatives, it can only legislate to
prevent discrimination on account of race
and color, and that any legislation beyond
this limit is unconstitutional and 7oid.
Hence the court declares the third and
fourth sections Of the act void. The third
section makes it indictable for inspectors of
elections to refuse a persons vote on ac-
count of his not having complied with some
prerequisite of the law, such as registry,
&c, when he presents his own affidavit
that he offered to perform the required act,
but was wrongfully prevented from doing
50 by the officer whose duty it was to re-
ceive or allow 1t. 1t is held that this sec
tion is void because it imposes punishment
on every refusal of vote for this cause,
and not simply on refusal on account of
race or color; that, as the act stands, it
imposes new regulation in local elections,
making the offer to do an act equivalent to
the doing of it, when the State law has not
made it such. 1t is held that Congress
has no right thus to interfere with
the qualifications of voting, except in the
SPECIAL case where they relate to discrim-
ination on account of race and color. The
fourth section makes it indictable to hinder
or prevent any citizen from voting or from
doing an act necessary to qualify him to
vote. 1t is held that this section is void
for the same reason. 1t does not confine
itself 10 hindrances and preventions on
account OF race and color, but is aimed at
all interferences with the citizens exercise
of the right to vote. This is held to be the
exclusive right of the State legislatures,
and it is decided, after argument, that the
court cannot hold an unconstitutional sec
ton void for some purposes and good for
Others, but that it must stand or fall upon
Its inherent soundness as a whole; hence
these sections are to be held absolutely
void. And, hence, the indictment against
1eSSSS anu LOIouSA lO1 W lCSClNS
the vote of a colored man in Louisville,
Kentucky, who mad not paid the requisite
tax, but presented his affidavit that he had
offered 10 pay it, was adjudged to be un-
supported by any valid law.
In the Grant parish case which was an
indictment under the sixth section of the
act, making it criminal to band or conspire
together to prevent or hinder any citizen
from exercising or enjoying any right or
privilege granted or secured to him by the
Constitution or laws of the United States,
the constitutionality of the act was not
questioned; but the indictment was held
bad because the rights and privileges which
it was charged the defendants had con-
spired to interfere with and prevent the
enjoyment of were not such as had been
conferred by the Constitution or laws of
the United States, but such as arose from
State laws or usages. These were the
right to peaceably assemble together for the
purpose of discussing political questions,
the right to bear arms, &C., all which
rights were held TO have originated prior
to and independent Of the Constitution
and laws of the United States, and the
only notice taken of them in the Constitu-