The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1876-04-03
should state particulars to inform the

Dut IL Is neeulesS 10 pursue tue argument |
further. The conclusion is irresistible |
that these counts are too vague and gen.
eral. They lack the certainty and pre-
cision required by the established rules of
criminal pleading. 1t follows that they
are not good aud sufficient in law. They
are so defective that no Judgment of con-
viction should be pronounced upon them.
The order OF the circuit court arresting
the judgment upon the verdict is, there
fore, affirmed and the case remanded. With
instructions to discharge the defendants.
Mr.. Justice Clifford dssented from the
opinion but concurred in the judgment.
THE KENTUCKY ELECTION CASE.
No. las. The United States, plaintiffs,
VS.. Hiram Reese and Matthew Fousbee,
in error to the circuit court of the United
States for the district of Kentucky. Mr..
Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion
of the court This case comes here by
reason of division of opinion between the
judges of the circuit court in the district of
Kentucky. 1t presents an indictment
containing four counts under sections and
of the act Of May 3lst, 1870, l6 Stat.
| l40, against two of the inspectors of NUM-
cipal election in the state of Kentucky for
refusing to receive and count at such cleo
ton the vote of William Garner, citizen
Of the United States of African descent
All the questions presented by the
certificate OF division arose upon general
demurrers to the several counts Of the
indictment in this court. The United
States abandon the first and third counts,
and expressly waive the consid Grafton of
all claims not arising out OF the enforce
ment of the fifteenth amendment of the
constitution. After this concession the
principal question left for consideration is
whether the act under which the indict.
ment is found can be made effective for
punishment of inspectors of elections who
refuse to receive and count the votes of
citizens of the United States having all the
qualifications of voters, because of their
race. color or previous condition of servl-
tude. 1t congress has not declared an act
done within a state to be crime against the
United States, the courts have no power
to treat it as SUCH United States VS.. Hud-
son, CIanch, 3D." 1t is not claimed
that there is any statute which can reach
this case unless it be the one in question
Looking the- to this statute, we find it's
first section provides that all citizens of the
l nited States who are or shall be other
wise qualified by law to vote at any election,
&C., shall be entitled and allowed to vote
thereat without distinction of race, color or
previous condition of servitude, any consti-
tuition, Nc OF the state Notwithstanding.
This simply declares the right without
providing punishment for its violation -
/ he second section provides for the punish
ment OF any officer charged with the duty
OF furnishing TO citizens an opportunity to
perform any act which, by the constitution
and laws OF any state, is made a
prerequisite or qualification of voting, who
shall omit to give all citizens of tie United
States the same and equal opportunity to
perform such prerequisite and become
qualified on account OF race, color or prev
luuS condition of servltude of the ap-
ullcant. This does not apply to or include
the inspectors of an election, whose only
duty it is to receive and count the votes OF
CT liens designated by law as voters, who
have already become qualified to vote at
the election. The third section is to the
effect that whenever by or under the con
sututlOn or laws Of any state, Nc, any act
is or shall be required to be done by any
9 citizen as prerequisite to qualify OF
! entltle him to vote, the offer of such
l citizen to perform the act required to be
$ done, as aforesaid, shall, if it fHl to be-
+ carried into execution by reason of wrong
i full act or omission, as aforesaid, of the
s person or officer charged with the duty O
;. receiving or permitting such performance
Il or offer to perform, or acting thereon, b'
o deemed and held as performance iu Law
OF such act, and the person SO offering ant
: failing, as Aforesaid, and being otherwis'
l. qualified, shall be entitled to vote in tht
4 same manner and to the same extent as
: he had in fact performed such act, an
o any judge, Inspector, or other officer O
n election whose duty it is to receive, couy.t
&c, or to give effect to the vote of an
u such citizen who shall wrong fully refuse
or omit to receive, &c, the vot
- OF such citizen uptn represents
n ton by him of his affidavit
y stating such offer, and the time and plac
y thereof and the name Of the person or o
e ticer whose duty it was to act thereon. an
'e that he was wr0ngfully prevented by sue
IS person or officer from performing such &C
lie hall, for every such offcnse, forfeit au
lie pay, &c. The fourth section provides fC
1t the punishment OF any person who shall i
q force, bribery, threats, intimidation
4. other unlawful means hinder. delay, &c
), or shall combine with others to hinder, d,
lay, prevent or obstruct any citizen frol
IS doing any act required to be done to quail
ID him to vote or from voting at any election
a. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACE.
n The second count in the indictment
], based upon the fourth section of this a
re and the fourth upon the third sectio
II Rights and immunities created by or d
TO pendent upon the constitution Of the Unite
States can be protected by congress. tt
I'd form and tie manner OF the protection mi
t, be such as congress in the legitimate e.
I'd ercise of its legislative discretion shall pr
to vide. These may lie varied to meet Il
Mt necessities Of the particular right to |
tn protected. The Fifteenth Amendmel
es does not confer the right of suffrage upC
De any one. 1t prevents the states or Il
ne United States, however, from giving pre-
be erence to one citizen OF the United Stat
IN over another on account OF race, coloi
y. previous condition of seryitude. Before i
70 adoption this could not be DONE 1t WI
I'D as much within the power of state
ut exclude citizens of the United States fro
or voting on account OF race, &C., as it was
rs account of age, property or education. No
De it is not. Previous to this amendme
e. there was no constitutional guaran
ii, against this discrimination. Now there
e. 1t follows that the amendment has investt
Is the citizens of the United States with
he new constitutional right which is with
ri the protective power of congress- Th