The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1876-04-06
r.1'ss NOW ror 4 RADICAL HOWL.
The United states Courts and the Enforcs-

In0 OupIcW9yOOoItO u th0 Chi'0u
STATED recently decided the Grant Par
ISL case, from louisiana, and the Ken
buck y election case. These cases in
volvc, says the N. Y. Sun, the most
important questions considered by
that court since the lesal-tcndcr de-
cision. The indictment in each case
was based upon the celebrated En-
forccment act of 1870, and the Court
was called upon to construe the third,
fourth, and sixth sections of that act.
The defendants in the Grant Parish
case were indicted for alleged viola
tions of the sixth section. This pro-
hibits two or moro persons from band
ing or conspiring together "to injure,
oppress, threaten, or intimidatc any
citizen, with intent to prevent or him
der his full exercise and enjoyment Of
any right or privilege granted or Sc
cured by the Constitution or laws of
the United States" The defendants
were charged in the indictment with
conspiracy to do certain specified acts
in violation of this provision. Were
the rights which they threatened to
interfere with granted or secured by
the Constitution or laws Of the United
States? Ifthey were not, the indict-
ment was fatally defective. 'i'''A
The Supreme Court has decided
that they were net. To appreciate the
scope and importance Of the decision,
it is necessary 10 understand what
were the rights under discussion. One
was the right of peaceabie assembly
for peaceful and lawful purpose.
This, says Chief Justice Waite, existed
long berore the adoption of the Con-
stitutlon OF the United States, and re-
mains SUBJECT To State jurisdiction.
The States alone are authorized TO
punish its infraeiion. 1t was also al
eyed that the conspirators intended
10 interfere with the rights Oflife and
personal liberty, for they were chargs
ed with conspiracy to alselyimprison
or murder certain citizens OF the Uni
ted States resident in Louisiana. These
rights, say the Court, are the natural
rights of man, and the sovereignty for
their protection rests alone with the
States '.The only obligation resting
upon the United States is to see that
the States dc not deny the right 70
Again, it was averred that the de-
fendants sought TO restrain the right
of certain celored citizens of African
descent to vote at any election. The
right of suffrage, however, az was de-
cided by the Supreme Court two years
ago, is net derived from the Constitu-
ton Of the United States; and as the
indictment did not charge that the in-
tent was to exclude the colorsd citi-'
zens from veting OIL account OF race,
color, orlprevious condition Of servi-
tude-so as to bring the case within
the terms of the fifteenth amendment
there was nothing to show 81 viola-i
ton of the Federal eC Constitution or
laws. t7fM itr - oi'L-L1 af e 30
From this it will be seen that al
though the Supreme COURT does not
in terms declare the sixth section of
the Enforcement act to be unconstitu-
tional, it does decide that the broad
interpretation and application sought
to be given TO it i'm the Federal courts
below is in violation of the rights of
the States and the Constitution Of the
United States. isf .t9efii T. s-j hos
In the Kentucky election case, the
question was whether the third and
fourth sections Of sthe Endorsement
act were appropriate legislation, under
the Constitutions, 10 enforce the fif-
teenth amendment, which provides
that the right of citizens to vote sheAa
not be denied J,or abridged by the
United States, or by any State. on ac-
count of race, color, or previous con-
dition Of servitudc. 1t is the opinion
OF the Court that the United States
has the right under this amendment
10 punish unlawf fnl individual discrim-
inationss on account OF race, color, or,
servitade q but the objection to- these
sections Of the Enforcement act is that
they do not stop there. lrrespectire
Of snch idtscrimination,a Il they provide
gensraliyiifor the punishment of inter-
ference with the right 0f suffrage, and
the power Of Congress does onot i ex-i
tend SO far as this! o 1t being iihIpossi-i
bleto separate q tile uneonstitatienal
parts Of these sseetions2 from fhOse
whichsa are constitatienai, ihe whole.
must fall. ii6 tsb hi'ads pii}" ,niHe 81
n The result of both decisions is' That
the operation Of the sixth section fiof
the Enforcement act is 40 restricted as
not to interfere witlltlie police pc wers
OF tile States, and the third and fourth
sections are practically stricken from
the statute book. -e'si'
n