New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-04-01

CuEcO Ny LILO CVO0tlLutAUu Ut laws VI tuS
United States.
The first and ninth counts state the in
tent of the defendants to have been to bin
der and prevent the citizens named in the
free exercise and enjoyment OF their Flaw
full right and privilege to peaceably as
semble together with each other and with
other citizens of the United States for q
peaceful and lawful purpose" The right
Of the people to peaceably assemble tol
lawful purposes existed long before the
adoption of the constitution OF the United
States. In fact, it lie, and always has been
one of the attributes of citizenship IN
der free government. 1t "derivee
it's source" to use the language Of
Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons
Va. Ogden, 9 Wheat, 2ll, ''from
those laws whose authority is acknowl
edged by civilize I'D man throughout the
world" 1t is found wherever civilization
exists. 1t was not, therefore, right
granted to the people by the constitution.
The government of the United States when
established found it in existence, with the
it protection. As no direct power over it
was granted to Congress. it remains, &C.
cording to the ruling in Gibbons Va. Ogden,
9 Wheat, 2O3, subject to State jurisdiction.
Only such existing rights were committed
by the people to the protection of Congress
as came within the general scope OF the
authority granted to the national govern.
ment.
The first amendment to the constitution
prohibits Congress from abridging 1.-THE
right of the people to assemble and to petit
ton the government for a redress of griev.
ances" THE, like the other amendments
proposed and adopted at the same time,
was not intended to limit the powers of the
in RI fhoir
citizens. but to operate on the national
government alone. Barron VS.. the city of
Baltimore, Pet, $50; Lessee Of Livingston
vs.. Moore, Pet, 55l; Fox VS.. Ohio, 5
How, 434 Smith vs.. Maryland, Is How,
IS; Withers vs.. Buckley, 20 How, 90; Per
wear vs.. the commonwealth, 5 WALL. 479;
Twitchell vs.. the commonwealth. I Wall.
32l; Ed~ ards Va. Elliott, Il Wall. 556) 1t
is now too late to question the correctness
of this construction. As was said by the
late Chief Justice. in Twitchell We. the
commonwealth, p. 235, ''the scope and ap-
plicatiOn of these amendments are no
longer subjects of discussion here" They
left the authority of the States just where
they found it, and added nothing to the al
ready existing powers of the United States.
The particular amendment now under
consideration assumes the existence of the
right of the people to assemble for lawful
purposes and protects it against encrOach-
ment by Congress. The right was not ere
ated by the amendment; neither was its
continuance guaranteed, except as against
Congressional interference. For their pro
lection in it's enjoyment, the refOre, the peo-
pie must look to the States. There is where
the power for that purpose was originally
placed. and it has never been surrendered
to the United States.
The right of the people peaceably to as
semble tor the purpose of pe:itioning Con
gress for a redress of grievances, or tor any
thing else connect Ted with the powers or the
duties of the national government, is an
attribute of national citizenship, and az
such under the protection of, and guar
anteed by the United States. The very
idea Of a government, republican in form
implies the right on the part OF the citizens
to meet peaceably for consultation il
respect to public affairs, and to petition fol
a redress of grievances. If it had been al
legged to these counts that the object OF the
defendants was to prevent meeting fol
such purpose, the case would have beer
within the statute and within the scope Of
the sovereignty of the United States. Such
however. is not the case. The otfense. al
stated in the indictment, will be made Ou
if it be shown that the object of the con
spiracy was to prevent a meeting for any
lawful purpose whatever.
The second and tenth counts are equally
defective. The right there specified is tina
of clearing arms for lawful purpose.
This is not right granted by the cOnstitu
ton. Neither Is it in any manner Deepen
dent upon that instrume nj tor its existence
The second amendment declares that i
shall not be infringed; but this, as has beer
seen, means no more than that 1t shall no
be lnfringed by Congress. This is one o
the amendments that has NO other etfec
than to restrict the powers of the nationa
government. leaving the people to look TO
their protection against any violation by
their fellow citizens of the rights it recog
nizes, to what is called in the city of New
York VS.. Min, ii Pet, l39, the "power
which relate to merely municipal legisla
ton or what was, perhaps, more properl,
called internal police" mot surrendered OF
restrained" by the constitution of tn
United States.
The third and eleventh counts are ever
more Objectionable. They charge the in
tent to have been to deprive the citizen
named. they being in Louisiana, 'Of thei
respective lives and liberty of person with
out due process of law This is nothing
else than alleging a conspiracy to falsely
imprison or murder citizens OF the Cnitet
States, being within the territorial juris
diction of the State of Louisiana. Tn
rights of life and personal liberty are natu
raj rights of man. ITO secure thes
rights says the Declaration of Independ
| ence, governments are instituted among
| men, deriving their just powers from thu
consent of the governed" The very high
est duty of the States, when they entere'
| into the Union under the constitution, wa
| to protect all persons within their bOunda
ries in the enjoyment of these ''inalienabl
rights with which they were endowed b.
their Creator" Sovereignty, for this pur
| pose, rests alone with the States" 1t is NJ
| more the duty or within the power OF tn
United States to punish for conspiracy II
| falsely imprison or murder within Stat
| than it would be to punish for false impris
onment or murder itself
The fourteenth amendment prohibits
| State from depriving any person OF life
| liberty or property without due process
law, but this adds nothing to the rights Q
| one citizen as against another. 1t slmpl
| furnishes an additional guarantee agains
any encroachment by the States upon tn
| fundamental rights which belong to ever
citizen as q member of society. AS we
said by Mr. Justice johnson, in Bank OF &c
| lumbia VS.. Okely, 4 Wheaton, pa. 1t &c
exercise of the government, unrestraine
| by the established principles of privat
| rights and distributive justice" Thes
counts in the indictment do not call for tn
exercise of any~of the powers conferred b.
this provision in the amendment.
| The fourth and twelfth courts charge tn
intent to have been to prevent and hinde
| the citizens named, who were OF Africa
descent and persons of color, in "the ire
| exercise and enjoyment of their severs
right and privilege to the full and equa
benefit of all laws and proceedings, the
| and there, before that TINA enacted or q
dained by the said State of Louisiana an
by the United States; and then and there
at that time, being in force in the said Stat
and district Of Louisiana, at >resaid, for tn
security of their respective persons an