The Van Buren press., 1876-04-04
Supreme Court Decision.

9th inst, say:
The supreme court to-day, decided
that the federal election law, under which
certain white parties were indicted for
interfering with the exercise of suffrage
by colored voters, is unconstitutional
and void.
The decision Of the supreme court in
the Grant parish case is very elaborate.
1t says, 4" There is nothing to show that
the elections voted at were any other
than state elections, or that the conspira-
cy was formed on account of the race of
the parties against whom the conspira-
tors were to act. The charge as made
is really of nothing more than conspira,
cy to commit breach of the peace with
in the state. Certainly it will not be
claimed that the United States have the
power, or are required to do mere police
duty in states. Ii state cannot pro-
tcct itself against domestic violence, the
United States may, upon the call Of the
executive, when the legislature cannot be
convened, lend their assistance for that
purpose. This is guaranty of the con.
stitution (act 4, section 4 but it ap
plies to no case like this. We are there
fore Of the opinion that the first, second
third, fourth. sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth,
twelfth, fourteenth and fifteenth counts
do not contain charges of that nature
made indictablc under the laws of the
United States, and that consequently are
not good aud sufficient in law They do
not show that it was the intent OF the de-
PENDANTS, by their conspiracy, to hinder
or prevent the enjoyment of any right
granted or secured by the constitution.
We come how to consider the ffth. thir-
teenth eighth and sixteenth counts which
may be brought together for that purpose.
The intent charged in the fifth and thir-
tcenth is to hinder and prevent parties in
their respective tree exercise aud eninv-
ucnt VI the rights, privileges, lmmuni-
ties and protection granted and secured
to them respectively, as citizens of the
United States, were persons of African
descent and race and persons of color,
not white citizens thereof; and in the
eighth and sixteenth, to hinder and pre-
vent them in their several and respective
free exercise and enjoyment of every,
each and all and singular the several
rights and privileges granted and secur,
| ed to them by the constitution and laws
of the United States. The same general
statement of rights to be interfered with,
is found in the fifth and thirteenth counts.
According to the view we take of these
counts, the question is not whether it is
enough in general to have described a
statutory otfense in the language of the
statute, but whether the oftense has here
been described at all, The statute pro-
vides for the punishment of those who
conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or
intimidate any citizen, with intent to pre-
vent or hinder his tree exercise or enjoy.
ment of any right or privilege granted
or secured to him by the constitution OF
laws of the United States These counts
in the indictment charge, in substance
that the intent in this case was to hinder
and prevent these citizens in the free ex.
ercise and enjoymen of each, every and
singular the rights granted to them by
the constitution The accused has q
right to have specification of charges
against him in this respect, in order tina,
he may decide whether he should presen,
his defense by motion to quash, de
murrer or plea. and the court that it may
determine whether the facts will sustain
the indictment-so that the crime is made
to consist of an unlawful combination
with an intent TO prevent the enjoyment
of any right granted or secured by the
constitution. All rights are not so gran.
ted or secured. Whether one is SO or
not. is q question of law to be decided
by the court, not prosecutor There
fore the indictment should state particu
lars, to inform the court as well as the
accused. 1t should be made to appear.
that's to say, appear in the indictment
without going further-that the act.
charged, will, if proven, support convic
ton for the ofenso alleged, The con
clusion is irresistible that these count,
are too vague and general they lack tn,
certainty and precision required by es
tahlished rules Of crmioal pleadings, Il
follows that they are not good and suf
6cent in law; they are so defective thai
no judgment Of conviction should bt
pronounced on them. The order of the
circuit court arrcsting judgment upon the
verdict is therefore affirmed, and the
cause remanded, with instructions to dis
charge the defendants. Justice Clifford
1 dissented from the opinion, but concur.
red in the iudoment