New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-04-01
was finally amended in its first section,
on motion Of Mr.. Brown, of Kentucky,
so as to read as follows:

was finally amended in its first section,
on motion Of Mr.. Brown, of Kentucky,
so as to read as follows:
That no officer or employe Of the govern
ment shall require or request, give to or re-
ceive from any other officer or empl0ye of
the same, or other person, directly or in
directly, any money or property, or other
thing of value for political purposes; and
any such officer or employee who shall offend
against the provisions of this act shall at
once be dismissed from the service of the
United States. and also be deemed guilty of
high misdemeanor, and on conviction
thereof fined not less than $500 nor more
than $4,000, and be imprisoned not more
than one year, at the discretion OF the
judge trying the case.
To which was added, on motion Of MIR.
Goode, of Virginia, section making it a
misdemeanor for any person to use force,
duress, menace, violence or bribery to in
fluence elections of President or Vice
President, Senator, Representative or
Delegate in Congress. The third section
gives United States district courts juris-
diction of the ofenses created by the act.
The bill passed the House as thus
amended by an almost unanimous vote,
and will await the action of the Senate.
The Tribune appears to think the Demo-
Gratis have made too much of concession
in agreeing to Mr.. Goodies amendment.
1t declares that the Republicans set up
claim to the right, under Mr.. Goodies
amendment, for the United States mar
shall to lock up every Democrat in his
district on the day of election.
1t will be seen that all the force there
is in the bill applies to interference in
voting for United States officials, which
limitation will have the same effect as the
color provision in the previous enforce
ment act Of Congress. The white people
of Grant parish did not hunt their victims
to death solely because they were colored,
but the fact that they were Republicans
had weighty influence in stimulating
hostility. In like manner, the proposed
law could be evaded by alleging that the
cause of any political quarrel was disa-
greement about any local or State Office.
It singular commentary on our re-
publican way of doing things, that one of
the great parties in the country should
thus seek to carefully provide in advance
to shield their agents from punishment for
violating the spirit of the law, by denying
that the letter has been disregarded. The
Democrats evidently want no restraints
So long as they possess the physical force
to carry the elections in certain districts,
they fight obstinately against penal enact
ments, and by their opposition confess
that the precautionary legislation is aimed
at offenders Of their own party. The Re
publicans have always been willing to
agree to the most rigid laws for the pun
ishment of bribery intimidation and
forcible interference with voters, while
their opponents have shown, uniformly,
very suspicious opposition.
There is no objection to the first Sec
ton Of the bill. Government employees
are entitled to protection against the ex-
actions Of political leaders under the pre-
tense of promoting party interests
There should be no reason for passing
the second. The good sense and love of
Justice Of opponents ought to be suffi-
cient to protect the weak voter of the
lay against the strong and vicious. For
these conditions may be reversed in the
future in the same individuals But. I'm.
experience proves that penal
avs are necessary to protect the strong
against the weak as well in political mat
ers as in the disputes which arise about