National Republican., 1876-03-28
THE SJPREMe COURT.
fConii1u.9 from First PaosJ


Of oil tbeir rights at home and abroad. True, It
may sometimes happen that person Is smtns-
bic TO both Jurisdictions for one and the Same ac.
Thus, II srs hal of the United States "a aalas-
folly resisted wbIIe rxs"u'tug the process Of the
soaIts within Stsis, and the resistance is &C
els ty of the Unite states is violated by the
sttabee, and that Of the State by the breach OF
peace In ths assault. So, too, " one passes the
counterfeit coin Of tho United States WIrhin u
State, Il may be an ohense against the Uuited
s etes and the State; the United States, because
T. diseredits the coin, ann the state, because OF
% frssd upon him to whom it is passed. This
does not, however, necessarily imply that the
governments possess powers 10 common or bring
them In cor hict With each other. II !. the nst1'
lteiaDce 10 two soyereignties and claims protec-
tion from both. The citiyen cannot complain be,
cause he has voluntarily submitted himself TO
such Q form OF government. He owes atiegi lance
to the two departments, so to speak, and within
their respective spheres must pay the penalties
which each exacts for disobedience to It's laws.
In return he can demand protection from each
within T. own jurisdiction.
The Governme ent Of the United States Is one
hned and limited by the Constitution. All pow.
ers not granted to It by that instrument are
rsfsIved TO the States or the people. No rights
can be acquired under the Constitution or law Of
the United States except such the Government
of the United states has the authority to grant or
secure: All that cannot be so granted or secured
We now proceed TO an examination OF the IN
dictmsn to ascertain whether the several Pig rs
which It is alleged the defendants htsnded to
interfere with, suoh as had been In Law aud 10
fact granted or secured by the Constitution or
laws Of the United States.
The FIRST and ninth counts state the intent Of
the defendsnts to have been to hinder and pre-.
vent the citizens named In the free exercise and
eDioyDe Of their "lawful right and privilege to
With other citizens Of the United States for a
peaceful and lawful purpose." The right Of the
people to pc aceaoly assemble for lawful purposes
on OF the United States. In fact, It is, and
always has been, Of the attributes Of citiz en-.
sblp under a free Government. lt "deriyes Its
Marshall, in Gibbons VS.. Ogden, Q Wheat, I'll,
'from those laws whose authority Is acknOyl-
edged by civilized man throughout the world ~
II lie found wherever civilization exists. II was
rot, therefore, right granted to the people by
the Constitution. The Government Of the United
with the Oblis alton On the part of the States 70
afford IL protection. AS no direct power over IL
was granted to Congress, it remains, according 10
the ruling in Gibbons VI. tgden, Wheat, 2O3
rights were committed by the people 70 the pro.
lection Of Congress as came within the general
scope of the authority granted 10 the National
Government.
The first amendment to the Constitution pro.
hibits Congress from abrfdging "tne rig ht of the
people to assemble and TO petition the Govern.
other amendments proposed and adopted at the
same time, as net Intended to link the powers
citizens, but to operate on the national Goyern.
ent alone. Barron VS. The City OF Baltimore
Pet, $50; Lessee OF Livingston vs. Moore, Pet,
55l; Fox VS.. Ohio. How, 43i: Smith We. Mary.
land, IS How, e: Witkers vs. Buckley 20 How
90; Pervesr W. The Commons Sealth, Wall. I79;
TSiieDell VS. Tho Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 81;
Edwards vs.. Elliott, q Wall, 657 1t Is now too
late to Qutssc the correctness OF this construc-
ton. As was said by the late Chief Justice, in
Twitcbell VS.. The Commonwealth, (p. 3G5,) 1.-The
scope ard application Of these amendments are
no longer subjects of discussion here" They left
the authority OF the States ji.t where they found
IL, and added nothing to the already existin {
powers Of the Uni:ed States.
The particular amendments now under consid-
GRAFTON assumes the existence of the right of the
people to assemble for lawful purposes aud pro-
tects It against eDeroachment by Congress. The
zig bt was not created by the amendment; neither
was its continuance guaranteed, except as against
Congressional interiors nee. For their protection
to the States. There is where the power for tha,
purpose was originally placed, and Il has never
been surrendered to the United States.
The rig ht Of the people peaeeabIy to assemble
FOR tie purpose OF petltIonlng Congress for a re-
dress OF grievances, or for anything else con-
nscted with the powers or the duties Of the Ma
tiOnal Government, is an attribute of national
citizsDthip, and as Euch uuder the protection OF,
and guaranteed by, tie United States, The
very idea Of q government, republican in form,
implies right on the part OF It's citizens to meet
peaeeably for consultation in respect TO pu bic
affairs and to petition for redress OF grievances
If 1t bad been alleged in these counts that ths
object of the defendants was to prevent a meet
ing for such purpose, the case would have been
within the statute and within the scope of the
sovereignty Of the United states. Such, how
ever, is not the case. The olsuse, as stated in
the indictment, will be made out IL be shown that
the object Of the conspiracy was 10 prevent q
meeting for any lawful purpose whatever.
Tho secord and tenth counts are equally de-
ctive. The ht there specified Is that Of bear
ing arms for lawful purpose" This is not a
rig ht granted by the Constitution. Neither Is IL
in any manner dependent upon that instrument
for its existence. The secOnd amendment de-
clares that It sball lot be tnfringeC: but this
has been seen, means no more than that It shall
not be infripged by Congress. This is one of the
amendments that has no other effect than to re-
sIrict the powers Of the National Government.
leaving the people to look for their protection
against any violation by their feIlow.citizens OF
the ghts II recognizes to what is called In The
City Of New York VS.. Milp, IL Pet, 139, the
powers which relate TO merely municipal Iegis-
Iatlon, or what was, perhaps, more properly
called ioternal police, /" mot surrendered or re-
strained" by the Constitution Of the United
States.
Tho third and eleventh counts are even moro
Objectionable. They charge the intent to have
been TO deprive the CITIZENS named, they being
in Louisiana, "of their respective lives and
liberty Of person without due process of law"
This is nothing else than alleging a conspiracy
to falsely inprison or murder citizens OF the
United States being within the territorial iuris.
diction # the Sra!e OF Louisiana. The rights Of
life ard personal liberty are natural rights of
man. 10 secure these rights," says the Dscla-
tuted among men, deriving their Just powers
from the consent OF the governed" The very
highest duty OF the States, when they entered
into the Union under the Constitution, was to
protect all persons within their boundaries in the
enjoy yment of these 'unalienab BILE rights with
which tkey were endowed by their Greater !"
the States. 1t is no more the duty or within the
power Of the United States to punish for a con-
spiracy to falsely imprison or murder within q
ment or murder itself.
The fourteenth amendment prohibits State
fo deprtvtpg any person OF life, liberty or
nolhing to the rights Of ore citizen as against an
other. II simply furnishes an additional guar
anty against any encroachment by the States
upon the fundamental rights which belong to
every citizen as member Of society. As was said
by Mr.. Justice johnson, in Bank Of Columbia vs.
OkeIy, Wheat, "a, 1t secures ''the individual
ernnent, unrestrained by the established princi-
pies of private rights and distributtye JUSTICE"
These counts in the indictment do not call for the
exercise Of any OF the powers conferred BY this
provision in the amendment.
The fourth and twelfth counts charge the intent
to have been 10 prevent and hinder the citizens
named, who were Of African descent and persons
Of color, in "the free exercise and enjoyment OF
their several right and privilege to the full and
equal benetit OF all laws and proceedings, then
and there, before that time enacted or ordained
by the said State Of Louisiana and by the United
States; and then and there, at that time, being
IN force in the said State and district OF Louis
isns Aforesaid for the security Of their respective
persons snd property, then and there. at that
time enjoy at and within said State and district
Of Louisiana by white persons, being citizens OF
said State Of Louisiana and the United States,
for the protection Of the persons and property OF
sad white citizens" There is no alleg alton that
this was done because Of the race or color Of the
persons conspired against. When stripped OF It's
verbIsge the case as presented amounts to noth-
ing more than that the defendants oonspired to
prevent certain citizens of the United States,
being within the State of Louisiana, from enjoy
ing the equal protection Of the laws Of the State
and Of the United States.
The fourteenth amendment prohibits q State
from denying to any person within its Jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws; but this provi-
sicn does not, any more than the one which pre-
cedts It, and which we have Just considered, add
any hing to the rights which one citizen has un-
der the Constitution against another The equal
ity Of the hts OF citizen is principle Of repub-
heanism. Every republican government Is in
duty bound 10 protect sll its citizens in the en-
Joy ment Of this principle If within its power.
That duty was originally assumed by the States,
ard It still remains there. The only obligation
resting upon the United States Is 10 see that the
States do not deny the right. This the amend
ment guarantees, but no more. The power Of
the National Govern ment is limited to the en-
foreement Of this guarantee.
No question arises under the civil rights act of
April 9. 1856, "a Stat, 27,) which s intended for
the protection OF citizens Of the United States n
fofa In rferhf