The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1876-04-13
THE ENFORCEMENT ACT.
Full Abstracts Of the Supreme Court
Decisions.

ClS1OQS Ill Tile heuGuCky ClcCtlou Caoo
and in the Grant Parish case, both
arising under the provisions of the En-
forcement act of May 81, 1870. In the
Grant Parish case, the Supreme Court
sustains the order of Judge Bradley, in
arrest of Judgment upon the verdicts, and
the causes are remanded with instructions
to discharge the defendants. The Ken
lucky election case is likewise decided by
the Supreme Court adversely to the En-
forcement act. This was the case of the
inspectors of elections who refused to re-
ceive the votes of two citizens of African
descent.
These decisions have been awaited with
great interest not only by members of
the bar, but by Congress and the people
generally throughout the country. Last
spring, when the Grant Parish case was
argued before the Supreme Court, such
eminent lawyers as the late Reverdy
johnson and Mr.. David Dudley Field
took such interest in the matter, and re-
garded the questions dependent upon the
deision of the court as of such vital
moment to the best interests of the coun-
try. that they went to Washington and
argued for what they considered the con-
stitutional rights of the people without
money and without price.
The enforcement act of 1870 was the
beginning of the series of the acts by
which Congress undertook to control the
whole machinery of the elective fran
chise, and to take from the States the
protection of the rights of the citizens.
It has been considered that upon the
validity of the initial act depends the
validity of the subsequent acts, as they
are all based on the same idea OF the
paramount power conferred upon Con-
gress by the late constitutional amend
ments. Hence the interest with which
the decision of the Supreme Court has
been awaited on all sides, and the anxiety
experienced in consequence of the long
delay of the court in announcing its
opinion. The opinion in both cases was
written and delivered by the chief justice.
In the Grant Parish case the opinion is
confined almost entirely to the discussion
of the different counts of the Indictment
under which Cruikshank and the others
in the case were Appended. 1t is de-
creed that the counts of the indictment
are defective, because the specifications
are too vague and too general. But the
opinion nowhere gives expression upon
the constitutionality of the enforcement
act itself. 1t was said by members ofthe
bar that it was very evident the court
wished to avoid direct. decision upon
the act. In the Kentucky case the court
is not so guarded in its language. 1t
here sets forth its doubts as to the power
of Congress to enact such sweeping legis-
lation, and hints at the dangers to follow
from such power.
This much may be deduced from the
opinion of. the Court in the two cases,
that although it does not positively de-
eide the act unconstitutional in such
terms as to estop any further prosecutions
under it, yet that in all cases which are
likely to arise under the act, the Court
can do no less if an appeal is taken to it
than to dismiss them, as it has the two
cases in point. Practically this makes
the enforcement act dead letter, and it
can hardly BIZ avoided in some of the
cases which may hereafter come in re-
view before the Court that it must decide
unequivocally as to the constitunality OF
the act.
HISTORY OF THE GRANT PARISH CASES.
The cases grew out of a riot in Grant
Parish, Louisiana, in 1873. A number
of negroes were killed, and indictments
under the so-called Enforcement act,
were found against certain white persons
charging them with conspiracy to deprive
colored citizens of their rights, &C., and
with murder. Ninety-eight whites were
indicted, and nine of them were tried IN
the United States Circuit Court. The
first trial resulted in a disagreement of
the Jury, and the second in conviction
of the accused. A motion was made IN
arrest of Judgment before Judge Bradley,
of the United States Supreme Court, and
Judge Wood. In an elaborate opinion,
holding the indictments to be illegal,
Judge Bradley argued that when any
rights or privileges of the citizen are only
secured in the Federal Constitution by Q
declaration that the State or the United
States shall not violate or abridge them,
it is at once understood that they are not
created or conferred by the Constitution,
but only guaranteed against Impairment
The thirteenth Constitutional amend
ment, he argued, clothes Congress with
the power to pass laws for the prosecution
and punishment of those Nho, deprive any
person of the rights it confers. The fit
teenth amendment, while securing to the
colored people the right to vote, "does
not" says, Judge Bradley, "coYer The
right to Uote. 1t only confers a right moi
to be excluded from voting by reason ol
race, color>or previous condition of servi-
tude. and this is all the right that Con-
gress can enforce" The real difficulty
in the cases before the court, was to de-
termine whether the amendment has
given to Congress any power to legislate
except to furnish redress where the States
violate the amendment. On this point
the Court inclined to the opinion that
Congress had the power to secure that
right, against the unfriendly operation ol
State laws, and against outrage and com
binations, &C., on the part of individuals
irrespective of State laws. The question
was then considered whether the four
teenth constitutional amendment EN-
powered Congress to pass laws for direct
ly enforcing all privileges and lmmunl'
ties of citizens of the United States, by
original proceedings in the United States
Courts, and Judge Bradley held that the
legislation required from Congress i:
on ly such as will provide q remedy o.
due punishment for trespasses, and vii
provide appeals from the State Courts tt
the United States Courts in cases tha
come up for consideration. In his opin
ion, therefore, the indictments were
fatally defective. The cases went up tt
the Supreme Court and were there elabo
rately argued.
The following are abstracts of thu
opinions:
THE LOUISIANA CASE.
The United States, plaintiffs in error
VS.. VIM. J. Cruikshank, VIM. B. Irwin
and John P. Hadnot, in error to the Cir
cult Court of the United States for tho