New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-04-05

.aicnS votSd = vsrS NY tsbsf Than beaes
formed on account Of tho race Of tho par
ties against whom the conspirAt0rs were t.
act. oonse quently these counts are defec'
tive.
Tho intent charged in the fifth and thir-
teenth counts is 'to hinder and prevent the
parties in their respective and FREQ exercise
and enjoy ment Of the rights. privileges, i'm
munities and protection granted and SC
cured to them respectively - citizens OF
the said State of Louisisna, for the reason
that they, being then and there citizens Of
said State and Of the United States, were
persons of African descent and race and
persons of color, and not white citizens
thereof; and the eighth and sixteenth
charges the intent to be ito hinder and pre-
vent them in their several and respective
free exercise and enjoyment Of each. every,
all and singular the several rights and pri-
vileges granted and secured to them by the
constitution and laws Of the United States"
for the reason that they, being then and
there citizens Of said State and Of the
United States, were persons Of African de-
scent and race and persons of color, and
not white citizens thereof
These counts are held to be insufficient,
as they do not charge what particular right
the parties have been deprived Of. The
general allegation that they were deprived
of all their rights, ETC., is too broad to put
the defendants on their defense. 1t does
not inform them of the nature or cause of
the accusation with clearness, and all nee.
essary certainty to apprise the accused of
the crime with which he stands accused.
The court says:
1t is an elementary princil le Of criminal
pleading that when the definition Of the
offense, whether it be at common law or by
statute includes generic terms. it is not
sufficient that the Indictment shall charge
the Offense in the same generic terms as in
the definition, but it must state the species,
it must descend to particulars.
1t will be perceived by the above epitome
of the points decided in this case, that it
was decided. on technical points. Every
count in tho Indictment, except those for
prevention Of the right Of bearing arms, and
of depriving persons of their lives and lib
critics, cffenses over which the State laws
alone operate were violations of the laws
of the United States, and if the counts in
the indictment had been properly drawn 90
as to have shown this fact, the findings of
the jury would have boon sustained by the
Supreme Court.
No allusion is made in the decision to the
unconstit utionality of the enforcement acts,
or any act passed by Congress to enforce
the constit utional amendments. nor do we
perceive from this decision any weakening
Of the force of these acts.
The explanation of these laws. by this
decision will enable the United States dis
triot attorneys hereafter to frame their in
dictments 90 as to charge the offensee, tho
punishment for which Congress enacted
these statutes.
All those who may entertain the opinion
that this decision of the Supreme Court Of
The United States rendered these laws, M.
gatory and destroyed their effect are very
greatly mistaken; with the aid Of this de-
Dision they can now be enforced with
much greater certainty than before.
s. R.