The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-04-08
THE ENFORCEMENT ACT INVALID.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN
THE KENTUCKY CASES.
The Act an EncrOaChment upon the
Rights Of the states.

gave its decision IN the cases testing the
constitutionality of the Enforcement act
sent up from the Kentucky Circuit Court
some days since. Below it will be found
in full:
No. 145-The United States, plaintiffs,
agt. Hiram Reese and Matthew Fous-
bee: in error to the Circuit Court of the
United States for the District Of Ken
lucky. Mr. Chief Justice Waite deliv-
cred the opinion Of the Court, as follows
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
This case comes here by reason Of a
division Of opinion between the judges
of the Circuit Court in the Distict OF
Kentucky. It presents an indictment
containing four counts under sections 3
and Of the act Of May 81, 1870, 16 Stat,
14O. against two Of the inspectors of a
municipal election in the State Of Ken
tucky for refusing to receive and count
at such election the vote OF William
Garner. a citizen OF the Emitted States.
of African descent. Ali 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 consideration 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 CON-
sIDERATIoN IS,
whether the act under which the indict-
ment is found can be made effective for
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 servitude. IF Congress has
not declared an act done within State
to be a crime against the United States,
the courts have no power to treat it as
such. UNITED States against Hudson,
Cranch. 80. 1t is not claimed that
there is any statute which can reach
this case, unless it be the one in ques-
ton. Looking, then, to this statute,
we find that
IT'S FIRST SECTION PROVIDES
that all citizens of the United States
who are or shall be otherwise qualified
by law to vote at any election shall be
entitled and allowed to vote thereat,
without distinction Of race, color or
previous condition of servitude, any
etc, of the State notwith
standing. This simply declares the
right, without providing punishment for
its violation.
THE SECOND SECTION PROVIDES
for the punishment Of any officer
with the duty of furnishing to
citizens an opportunity to perform any
net 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 the United States
the same and equal opportunity to per-
form such prerequisite and become
1ualified on account of race, color or
previous condition of servitude OF the
applicant. This does not apply to or
include the inspectors OF election,
whose only duty is to receive and count
rs voters who have already become
lualified to vote at tho election.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE LAW.
The third section is to the effect that
whenever by or under the Constitution
)r laws of any State, etc, any act is or
shall be required to be done by any citi-
lie him to vote, the offer of such citizen
% perform the act required to be done,
IS aforesaid, shall, If it fail to be carried
nto execution by reason of wrongful
ict or omission, as aforesaid, of the per-
son or officer charged with the duty of
or permitting such perform
lnce. or offer to perform, or acting
,hereon be deemed and held as a per-
'ormance i'm law of such act, and the per
son 50 Offering and failing, as
and being otherwise
Iuaified, shall be entitled to
7ote in the same manner and to
he same extent as il he had in fact
performed such act, and any Judge, in
whose duty it is to receive, count. etc,
,r to give effect to the vote of any such
,itizen, who shall wrongfully refuse or
)mit to receive. count, etc, the vote OF
such citizen. upon representation by
him Of his affidavit, stating such offer
md the time and place thereof, and the
name Of the person or officer whose
duty it was to act thereon. and that he
was wrongfully prevented by such per-
son or officer from performing such act,
shall, for every such offenSe, forfeit and
pay, etc.
THE FOURTH SECTION
provides for the punishment OF any
person who shall ''by force, bribery,
threats, intimidation, or other 'unlaw
full means, hinder, delay, etc, or shall
combine with others to hinder, delay,
prevent, or obstruct any citizen from
doing any act required to be done to
qualify him to vote, or from voting
at any election" The second count
in the Indictment is based upon
the fourth section OF this act,
and the fourth upon the
third section. Rights and immnnities
created by or dependent upon the COnsti-
tuition of the United States can be pro-
tected by Congress. The form and the
as Congress, in the legitimate exercise
Of its legislative discretion, shall pro-
vide. These NAV be varied to meet the
necessities Of the particular right to be
protected The fifteenth amendment does
not confer the right of suffrage upon any
one 1t prevents the States or the
United States, however. from giving
preference tC one citizen of the United
States over another on account OF race,
color or previous condition Of servi-
tude. Before it's adoption this could not
be done. 1t is as much within the power OF
a State to exclude citizens OF the United
States from voting Oh account OF race,
etc, as it was on account of age, prop
erty, or education. Now it is not. Pre-
vious to this amendment there was no
guarantee against this
Now there is. 1t fol-
lows that the amendment has invested
the citizens Of the United States with a
new constitutional right which is within
the protective power OF Congress. That
right is exemption from discrimination
in the exercise Of the elective franchise
of race, color, etc. This. under the ex-
press provision Of the second section Of