The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-04-04
Breaasdown OF tine Endorsement A ,a

z s THE n,rtisan statement that the court mas
decificd the enforcement act, 80 called, 70 DC
Void Is the abatement of what Is only an 10.
farred effect of the decision, and net OF tne
decision itself, which does not go Deyonu
the mere technical questions OF law pre-
sented by the pleadings 10 the cases. Dotn
were eases brought Under the act OF Con-
oress TO enforce the fifteenth amenomenl,
vrhich amendment Is wholly COMPRISED III
these words ...:.. -
g Article XIV. The right of the citizens OF
tho Tinted States to vote shall not bedenied
or abridged BY the United States, or oy any
State. on account of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude. ..,.
That Congress, by legislative enactment,
NAV provide for the enforcement OF ;tnis ar
ticie throughout the nation, in all elections
wha,soever. from presidential election
dnwn r. al, election of the least functionary
IN the smallest municipality, cannot be ques-
toned This power is conferred by thls
amendment upon the National Legislature,
which. prior to the adoption of the amead-
ment. had no power at all upen the SUBJECT
of voting at State or municipal elections.
The new power of Congress is such power
az NAV be necessary to convey the amend.
ment into effect. The amendment Is aimed
nj particular class or kind of infringe.
ments UPON the equal right Of citizens
of the United States to vote under the
conditions prescribed by local laws-name'
". abridgments OF the voting franchise
on account OF race, color, or previous condl.
ton of seryitude. A local statute or con-
s,jtutiou which should assume TO limit the
elective franchise to white persons, or to
persons of particular race. or to all except
ing those of particular color or race, or
who had formerly been slaves, would be in
valid, and any attempt TO convey IL into
effect would be an act within the cognition
of the power of Congress under the fifteenth
amendment. So any abridgemeut of the
elective franchise because of race, color, &C.,
may be prevented under the authority and
power of Congress. But beyond the part1cuisr
limtmpied by the words ofthe amendment
the power of Congress does noteX'end. Any
State may prescribe a property qualification
of the franchise. or any other qualification
abridging the electoral privileges, provided
it apply alike to men of all race', colors, DC.
And even wrongful abridgments Of the
franchise to lawful voters OF any class are
not within the puryiew of the amendment
unless they are abridgments on account OF
the particular causes specified. +" Il has not
been contended, nor can it be-" says the
court, .s that the amendment confers autho-
rity to impose penalty for every wrongful
refusal TO receive the vote Of qualified
elector at State elections. 1t is only when
the wrongful refusal is because of race, color,
or previous condition Of servitude"
The enforcement act is found TO be too
general and vague in its provisions to apply
to The particular cases which the amendment
eontemplates. "There is no attempt to pro.
vide specifically for such an offence as the
amendment implies, and as the pleadings
alege. off the case is provided for at all, it
is because it comes under the general prohi-
bition against any unlawful act or wrongful
obstruction" The question which the court
WIS therefore required to determine was
whether the court itself would introduce
words Of Limitation into penal statute,
50 as to make 1t specific, when as express.
ed it is general only. The court could not
regard his as a part of the judicial function.
&" It would certainly be dangerous if the
Legislature could set net large enough to
catch all possible offenders, and leave it to
the courts to step inside and say who could
be rightly detained aud who set at large" 1t
would be in effect to make new law, aud
not to enforce an old one. The court, there.
fore decide that Congress "has not get pro-
uided By appropriate legislation for the
punishment OF offences sach as the fifteenth
amendment contem plates and gives Con-
gress the power to provide for Furnishing.
The decision is, essentially, not that the
enforcement act is unconstitutional, but that
it is inadequate to the special end EN- bodied
in the constitutional amendment. In other
words, it ia not such legislation as is reeui-
site, and as Congress Is empowered to pass,
to convey the amendment into effect. For
that purpose it is insuficient-for any other
purpose than that it is invalid. In effect,
therefore, the decision must put an end to
the sct itself, so far as its execution is con
cerned. - -s4
But the decision also affords an excellent
opportunity for the Confederate majority in
Congress to demonstrate the sincerity of their
professed acquiescence in the constitutional
amendments, by passing the appropriate
legislation, in the place of this inappropriate
act, to convey the fifteenth amendment into
effect. By so doing they can 90 a great deal
to remove the prevailing suspicion and be-
lief that they are men moved by intense
prejuaices, not only against the ipappro-
pirate enforcement act, but also against the
constitutional amendment which it was pre-.
rentiously intended to enforce. By not SO
doing, and by taking advantage of the
courts decision that the act IL inadequate TO
The end to pursue such course as will tend
to render the fifteenth amendment made
quate to the end too. they can demonstrate to
the satisfaction, of everybody thai. their pro-
,eststious of acqueseencel in the new order
of things have been made for fraudulent
political purpose CHICAGO Times.
MARRIAGES.
Married ON the I'D OF kpril Ut the sresidenee of