The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-03-29

C9lUttfnu Oh ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iss ASot,.S,1
this could be done. II WAS as much within
the power or State 90 exclude citizens OF
the United States from voting on account OF
race. &e., as it Was on account OF age, pre-
perfy, or education. Now II IL NOT. Ii citi-
gene Of one race having certain qualifications
are pel.ssitted by law to vote, those OF
another having the SINE qusfidcat lions must
be, Previous to this amendment there
was no constitutional guaranty against
this Discrimination. Now there. is. 1t
follows that the amendment has in.
vested tho citizens Of the United States with
q new constitutional right which Is within
the protecting power Of Congress. That
right Is exemption from Discrimination in
the exercise of the elective franchise on &C.
count OF race, color, or previous condition
of seryitude. This, under the express pro-
visions OF the second section of the amend
men', Congress may. enforce BY appropriate
legislation"
! This leads Us to inquire whether the act
under consideration is Inappropriate iesisla-
:;tion . for that purpose. The power OF Con.
gress to legislate at all upon the subject oil
voting at State elections
RESTS UPON THIS AMENDMENT.
The effect OF article 1, section 4. of the
Constitution ia respect to elections for sena.
tors and representatives is not now under
consideration. It has not been commended,
nor can it be, that the amendment eonters
authority TO impose penalties for every
wrongful! refusal to receive the vote OF q
qualified elector a. State elections. 1t is only
when the wrongful refusal at such an elec'
ton is because OF race, color, or previous
Of n
terfere aud provide for lis punishment. If,
therefore, the third and fourth sections Of
the act are beyond that limit they are unau-
tborized.
The third section does not in express terms
limit the offence of an Inspector Of elections,
for which the punishment is provided, to
wrongful discrimination on account Of race,
&c. THIS is conceded, but it is urged that
when this section is construed with those
which precede 1t, and TO which, as is claim,
Cd. it refers,is Is 80 limited. The argument
Is that the only wrongful act on the part of
the off ,er whose duty it is to receive or
permit the requisite qualification, which can
dispense with actual qualification under the
State Laws and substitute the prescribed
affidavit therefor, is that mentioned aud
prohibited in section 2-to wit, discrimipa-
ton OF account of race, &c. and that con-
seqneDtly section IS confined in its opera
ton 10 the same wrongful Discrimination.
This is penal statute, aud must be con-
strued strictly; not so strictly, indeed, as to
defeat the clear intention OF Congress, but
the words employed must be understood 10
the sense they were obviously used (Unlied
States uS. Witberger, 5 Wheat, 49,. II,
taking the whole statute together, 1t is apps'
rent that it was not the intention of Congress
thus 10 limit the operation OF the ACT, we
cannot give it that effect.
The statute contemplates q most Important
change iG the election laws. Previous to lis
adoption the States, as general rule, regu-
lated in their own way all the details of all
elections. They prescribed the qualifications
of voters and the manner in which those
Offering to vote at IN election should make
koown their qualifications to the officers in
charge. This act interferes with this prac-
uce, and prescribes rules not provided by
the laws of the States. 1t substitutes, under
certain circumstances, performance wrong.
fully prevented for performance itself. Ii,
the clector makes and presents his affidavits
in the form and 70 the effect prescribed, the
inspectors are TO treat this as the equivalent
of tre specified requirement OF the State law.
THIS IS A RADICAL CHANGE
In the practice, and the statute which creates
it should be explicit in its terms. Nothing
should be left to construction IL it can BIZ
avoided. The law ought not to be in such
condition that the electar may act upon one
Idea Of its meaning and the inspector upon
another. - ---. s----"-e-
The elector, under the provisions of the
statute, is only required 10 state in his atlda-
Wit that he has been wropgfully prevented by
the officer from qualifying. There are no
words Of Limitation 10 this part of the Sec
ton. In case like this, if an affidavit is n
the language of the statute, it ought 10 be
sufficient both for the voter and the inspec-
tor. Laws which prohibit the doisg Of
things and provide punishment for their
violation should have no double meaning.
A citizen should not unnecessarily be placed
where, by an beuest error in the construc.
ton of penal statute, be may be subjected
to prosecution for false oath, aud an 10
spector Of elections should not be put in
jeopardy because be, With equal honesty,
eutertains an opposite opinion.
If this statute limits the wrongful act
which will justify the affidavit to discrimina-
ton on account of race, &C., then a citizen
who makes an affidavit that he has been
wrongfulIy prevented by the officer, which
is true in the ordinary sense OF that term,
subjects himself to indictment and trial, il
not to conviction, because 1t is not true that
he has been prevented by such wrongful
act as the statute contemplated; and if there
is no such Limitation, but any wrongful act
of exclusion will justify the affidavit and
give the right to vote without the actual per-
Torrance OF the prerequisite, then the in
spector who rejects the vote because be reads
the law in its limited sense. and thinks it is
confined to
A WONDERFUL DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF
RACE, ETC,
subjects hims,l; to prosecution, if not to
punishment, because he has misconstrued
the law. Penal statutes ought no. to be eX.
pressed in language so uncertain. II the
Legislature undertakes to define, by statute,
new offence, aud provide for its punish.
ment, it should express its will In language
that need not deceive the common mind.
Every man should be able to know with
certainty when he is committing crime.
But when we 60 beyond the third section
and read the fourth we find there no words
of limitation, or reference even, that can be
construed as manifestIng any intention to
confine its provisions to the terms Of the fif-
teenth amendment. That section has for its
object the punishment OF all persons who by
force, bribery, s., hinder, delay, &C., any
person from qualifying or voting. Ii view
Of all these facts we feel compelled 10 say
that in our opinion the language of the third
and fourth sections does not confine their
operation to unlawful Determinations on &C.
count of race, &c. II Congress had the
power TO provide generally for the punish.
R7apt IF thosp who mia pf1llU ipta RI
prevent the exercise of the elective franchise
mil hnpf rooord RI cnnh Decentralization fbo