The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-09-27


opinion between the Judges of the Circuit
Court in Kentucky. The opinion of Chief
Justice WAITE, certified by the clerk OF the
court, is printed in this paper.
The defendants, inspectors at a NUM-
cipal election in Kentucky, were in
dotted under sections and OF the act
OF May 81, 1870, for refusing to receive and
count at such election the vote of one
WILLIAM GARNER. citizen OF the United
States OF African descent. At the hearing,
the United States waived all claims not
arising out of the enforcement of the Fiji
teenth Amendment. SO that the gu estion
was whether sections 3 and of the act of
1870 were an adequate and available exc
cution of the Fifteenth Amendment,
which prohibits any discrimination against
voters on account CT their race or color;
that Is to say, whether the law In question
was appropriate legislation for this
purpose.
1t is true that the alleged offence
sought to be punished was the refusal
TO receive the vote Of colored citi-
zen at State election. II is also true that
the Court said, 1.-THE power of Con-
gress TO leglslate at oil upon the sub
jeot of voting at State elections
rests upon this 1.-THE Fifteenth amend
ment." 1t Is true, further, that they said
1.-THE effect of article 1. section 4, of the Con-
stitution, In respect To elections for sena-
tors and Representatives lii Cougress1isnot
now under considerations" that is to say,
the Court were not called upon to consider
that clause of the Constitution which gives
Congress a reserved power to legislate on
the time, place, and manner OF choosing
Senators or Representatives. All that the
case called upon the Court to decide re-
lated to the effect of the Fifteenth
Amendment, and to the question
whether sections . and of the
act of 1870 were au adequate execution of
the amendment.
If those sections were not adequate TO
reach the offence of refusing to receive
the vote of qualified oolored voter at
State election, for the same reason
they cannot be adequate to punish a
like refusal at any election, because the
Court IN several previous cases, and in the
most pointed manner, had laid IL down rs
law that the right OF suffrage Is State
right, derived from the State and not from
the United States, and that the Fifteenth
Amendment has done nothing more than
to provide that no discrimination shall
be made on account OF race or color.
1--WE feel compelled to decide" said the
Chief Justice, "that in our opinion the Ian
guage of the third aud fourth sections does
not confine their operation TO unlawful
discrimination on account OF race. sc. II
-. Ia
ally for the punishment OF thoss who I'M
| lawfully interfere to prevent the exercise
| Of the elective franchise without regard to
such discrimination, the language OF these
sections would be broad enough for the
purpose"
He then goes on to show that the
language of the sections is 80 broad and
general that they cannot be held TO have
provided for the punishment of the only
offence which Congress is authorized to
punish, namely, discrimination on account
of race or color. lie therefore announces
| in conclusion, that "Cougress has not
as yet provided by appropriate legislation
for the punishment OF the offence charged
| in the Indictment" which was the offence
OF refusing to receive tue vote of quail
| fed cOlored voter.
OF what consequence is IL, then. that
in this particular case the alleged Of
fence was one committed at State
eleotion2 Does tho decision leave II
an open question whether sections and
OF the act OF 1870 can he applied TO Fed
era elections as an adeq Iate or appro-
pirate execution Of the Fifteenth Amend
| Inent? BY no means The very reaso u
that makes those sections unconstitutional
in respect to State elections nullies them
as TO all elections That reason Is, not that
Congress has exceeded its powers in re-
spect TO State elections, and that under
the Fifteenth Amendment it may have
further powers as TO Federal elections, but
that II has undertaken TO make IA Law
under tho Fifteenth Amendment which
Is not confined 10 the punishment of the
only offence which that amendment au-
thorizes Congress 10 punish, and does not
even notice that offence.
If the Attorney General Is correctly
reported in the Herald, he has sale
what the opinion of the Chief Jus.
tice did not authorize him to say
that the Court expressly said that thei
ruling had no bearing upon the Fed
eral elections. There IS no sucn statement
in the opinion. Ii there had boon, it woulC
have been "a Standardization by the Court
There cannot IN the nature of things be
single reason suggested which Will max
the slightest difference between Fedora
and State elections, if the reasoning of tia,
Chief Justice on sections 3 and 4 of the nc
OF 1870 is sound. What IS true under tn
Fifteenth Amendment as TO the power O
Congress over State elections, is equal
true Of its power over Federal elections
under the same amendment. Without an
discrimination as to the kind of election,
the amendment prohibits discrimination
against voters on account of race or color
and legislation which fails to execute tn
amendment, IN respect TO State election
is equally failure "a to any election g
which the right of suffrage may be exel
oised.
II all this preparation Of the army
the Unit ed States, TO enforce those PR
> visions Of the Revised Statutes which al
simple repettions of the third and fourt