New-York tribune., 1876-03-28
END OF THE GRANT PARISH CASE.

END Or The GRANT PARlSh CASE.
A DISCHARGE OF THE PRISONERS DiRECrEh BY THE
SUPREME COURT-THE CHARGES EITHER TOO
GENERAL AND VAGUE OR NOT INDICTABIE
UNDER TIE UNITED STATES LAWS.
WASHINGTON March 27.--The Supreme Court
to-day decided the famous Grant Parish case, the
opinion of the Court being delivered 10y Nr. Chief
Justice Waite. The conclusion reached is that the
counts in the indictment too vague and general,
and therefore are not good and sufficient iii law"
The order Of the Circuit Court arTesting judgment
is affirmed and the case is remanded, with instruc-
tons TO discharge the defendants, William j. Cruik
shank, William ID. Irwin and John y. HudnOt. The
decision in substance is as follows:
No 339-The United States plaintiffs in error against
Hnduot in error to the Crcuit Court of tie Uniied
states for the District of LOuisana.Mr. ChelJUsce
This case comes here with certificate by the Judges
of the Circuit Court for e District Of Louisiana that
occurred ut hearing Itpresents for Consdera
tion nm Indictment containing Is counts divided INTO two
series of eight counts each based upon Section OF the
Enforcement act OF iIay 81, 1870 That section is as
That If two or more persons shall band or conspre
together. IN disguise upon the puJle BghBay or
upon Tie premises OF another WIN ntsht TO Eloae amy
inuidAte citizeu with intent 10 prevent or hinder
granted or secured byftc CONSTITUTION or laws Of tie
United States, or becase OF his naving exercised the
conviction thereof shall be fined Or imprisoned, or
both, at the discretion Of the Court, the line
not TO exceed $1,000 and the imprisonment
not to exceed 10 years. and shall moreover,
be thereafter Ineligible to- and disabled irom,
trust created by the Constitution Or laws Of tie United
States u6 stat I'D The quesoncertifed arose upon
motion in arrest OF judgment after verdict of guilty.
The general charge in the first eight counts is that OF
together TO lpue opIeSs threaten ana lilmdac Lew
Nelson ana Alexander Jtllman, citizens of the United
states OF African descent and persons Of color. The Of
lenses provided for py the statute IN question do not con
sist in the mere banding" Or "cOnsprng" OF two or
ing with the intent or Tor any OF the purposes specified
TO bring this case under the operation OF this
rigSt the enjoyment Of Which The consprators
intended to hinder or prevent, was one granted OF
il does not so appear the criminal matter charged has
not been made indicable by any act of Congress We
have iu political system a government of the United
states and government OF each OF the several States
Each OF these governments is distinct from the
other, and each has citizens OF its who owe II allie
glance and whose rights, within It's jurisdiction, ii
protect The same person may be at the same time
ctizen OF the United States and citizen OF State;
but his rights OF uuzenshp under one OF these govern
slaughter House cases, l6 Wall, 74J
The duty OF government TO afford protection is lin
The separate government Of the separate States bound
together by the articles OF confederation alone nU
sufficient for the promotion OF the general welfare OF tie
people respect 10 foreign nations, for the complete
protection as citizens OF the cOniederatcd states For
this reason the people Of the United States, :"
order 10 form more perfect union, establish
Justice, secure domestic tranquility, provide FOR
The common defense promote the general wei
isre, aud secure the blessings of liberty" TO
themselves and their pOsteFty constitutional preaInbel
ordained and established the government Of tue United
States and dehued its powers By constitution which
they adopted Its fundamental law and made It's rule OF
action Inc government thus estabi.hed ana denneGis
TO extent government OF the States In their pol
cal capacity Ii is also for certain purposes govern
meut Of the people Its powers limited in number
hut not in degree. Within the scope of lis powers
enumerated and defined, it is supreme and above the
beyond, 10 has existence II erected
for special purposes and endowed with all powers
necessary Tor its preservation and the accomplish
ent OF the ends it's people had in view Ii neither
grant to its citizens right privilege
expressly Implication placed under its Jurisdiction
The people the United States, resident within any
state are subject to two governments State and
tho other ndtiOnal but there need be
lire one Possesses the other does not. True, IL
10 both jurisdictions for and the act Thus, IL
marshal, of he United States is unawfully resisted
while executing the process OF the courts within state,
and the 10 accompanied by an assault on the
officer sovereignty OF the United States Is violated
by the resistance and that of the State by the breach OF
peace In the assault This does not however necessarily
imply that the governments possess powers In com
mon that bring them into conflict with each other
We now proceed 10 an examination OF the Indictment
TO ascertain whether the several rights which II Is a.
legged the defendants intended 10 interfere with are such
been In law and In fact granted or secured by the
Constitution laws OF the United States The first and
u tn counts intent OF the defendants 10 have
been hinder and prevent the citizens named In tho
privilege to peaceably assemble together with each
other with other cizens OF the United States for
peaceful and lawful purpose" The night OF the people
hla and alWaye