The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1876-04-15

From the New Orleans Times Correspondent.
Judge Black said to me the eve
ming after the Supreme court rem
dercd the decision on the Grant
parish appeal: Since the Dred
Scott case there has been no deci-
sion Of such consequence to the |
country. Perhaps" continued the |
veteran jurist, "it is better that |
tho Chief Justice rendered this
opinion now. A Republican has |
practically annulled an act which
wss q disgrace to our statutes.
Congress could not have repealed
the act, atrocious as it was, with
out firing the Northern heart. We
would have lost the coming CAM
paign If our friends had done this.
Judge Waite deserves well Of the
country, and has shown the rare
ability Of rising above the partisan
to the dignity aud majesty Of
great Judge" Judge" | said,
"what has the Supreme court re-
ally decided in this case2 The
opinion Of the Chief Justice is
long, and perhaps may not be un-
derstood by those unused to legal
technicalities. Can you put the
sense of the court in a few words,
90 / can make II clear to the read
ers Of the Times who are not law
yers2" After rejecting q minute,
the great legal luminary said: 81
think can. 1t is very difficult to
put the decision in simpler or more
ineligible language than It is in.
This is the substance: The. .deci.
sion explicitly sets forth that the
government OF the United States,
as government, cannot protect
or defend any right which 1t did
not itself originate. The right to
bear arms, to vote, and the rights
Of assemulagc and petition, were
inherent in the States long before
tho present Federal constitution
was framed. Therefore the Fede-
raj constitution has no right to in
tcrfcre in any way with these ex.
elusive prcrogatives of tho States
Tho first important admission by
the Supreme court is, that as these
rights are clearly stated as exist
! Ing inthe constitution, the general
government can neither interfere
| with them, nor pretend to enforce
or regulate thcm." "But ao '.A'
tho late constitutional amcadmentl
change or in some way alter the re
lations between the States and TIN
gcneral-goyernment?" 2" inquired
mo-" was the reply. "Thc con
stitutional amendments do mol
change this, nor could they. The,
only declare that persons hasint
otherwise the right to vote, shul
not be disfranchised by reason o
race, color, or previous condition
Of servitude. There seems to be
+ popular misapprehcnsion as to tn
} scope Of the amendments" sai'
: Judge Black. ~ have never me
,, with q lawyer Of ability, no matte
T what his politics were, who eve
: pretended to say an amendment t,
!; tho constitution conferred tn
right of suffrage. They may re
! movc one Of the obstacles in tn
4 way Of acquiring the right OF sui
frage, but this is all. Suffrage Is
!, right bestowed by the State. Whe'
9 granted, it is q personal right vest
h ed il the voter. The State pro
: tccts him in its exercise, and alon
= can punish those who may attemp
o to deprive the properly qualifie
$ person of the exercise Of the righ'
: Briefly put, the voter is not th
: creation of the United States, bu
i Of the State. This was decide
h by tho Supreme court yestcrda!
AS | believe have already statet
although the decision does not e.
prcssly declare certain sections
The Force Bill unconstitutiona
vet its ttatemcnts make any COZ
b viction under the act an imposs
bility."
= = why Is q conviction imposs
:. = BILE 2" l asked.
i "For this reason All Of the q
C legations in the indictment mu
not only be set forth with partic
: larity, but proven. Now how a
you going to prove that an assau
which was made upon negro V
IN ter was so made because Of h
y, race or color? The charge Is !
4, 4 capable Of prosf. How are "
o, going to prove q mans motive
.. TO be sure Judge Waite said
y could be Suspected So 1t CO
But how can it be provcnf
good many negroes devote in lAo
: isiana, don't they 7" 20, yes
u answered. "And do not most
them vote without any charge
intimidation being made? Surf
they do and don't YOU SEQ u
kkis mat would 70 far 70 weak