The daily gazette., 1876-09-29
Taff's Bay0net Order.

editorical article from the New York
Herald, Republican paper, defending
the position taken by Senator BAYARD
in regard to the unconstitutionality of the
States over suffrage. The Herdld's re-
marks were direct and pointed in opposi-
sion to TAFT, who had written a COM
munication to it explaining his order and
stating that the decision of the Supreme
Court was in regard to State elections
and did not refer to Federal elections.-
The concluding remarks of the Herald
were as follows:
If law is void in toto, it is, of course,
void in its application to federal as well
as to State elections. After deciding that
Congress has no power to interfere at all
except for the one purpose of preventing
determinations founded on race or color
the Court concludes by saying:-"We
must, therefore, decide that Congress has
not, as yet, provided by appropriate legis-
lation for the punishment of the offence
charged in the indictment" As the only
thing it has right to punish in connec-
ton with the suffrage is its denial on the
ground of color it is clear that there is at
present no constitutional law on the sub
ject. The principle applies equally to
all elections, whethermembers ofCongress
are to de chosen or not.
In conclusion we will subjoin some
pertinent excerpts from the Supreme
Court decsion:-''It remains now to con-
slider whether statute so general as this
in its provisions can be made available
for the punishment of those who may be
guilty of unlawful discrimination against
citizens of the United States while eXer-
cising the elective franchise, on account
of their race, &c. There is no attempt in
the sections now under consideration to
provide specially for such an offence. If
the case is provided for at all it is because
it comes uLd9r the general prohibition
against any wrongful act or unlawful OBJ
struction in this particular. We are,
therefore, directly called upon to decide
whether penal statute enacted by Con-
gress with its limited powers, which pro-
vides in general language, broad enough
to cover wrongful acts without as well
as within the constitutional jurisdiction,
can be limited by judicial constructions so
as to make it operate only on that which
Congress may rightfully prohibit and
punish. For this purpose we must take
these sections of the statute as they are
4 We are not able to reject part which is
unconstitutional and retainthe remainder,
if there be such, from that which is not
''The question then is whether
we can introduce words of limitation into
penal statute so as to make il specific
when, as expressed, it is general only
This would to some ex
) tent substitute the judicial for the legis
lative department of the government
Within its legitimate sphere Congress is
supreme and beyond the control of tn,
courts; but if it steps outside Of its conSt
ltutional limitations and attempts tha
which is beyond its reach the courts ar,
authorised to, and when called upon il
due course of legal proceedings must, an
: nul its encroachnents upon the reserve,
e power ofthe States and the people. T,
. limit this statute in the manner now ask
ed for would be to make new law, no
to enforce an old one The whole wa
r therefore declared void by reason Of re
f pugnance to the constitution. We wis
4 Attorney General Taft would tell us hoy
it can be dead for all purposes and yc
VI alive for controlling federal election.
n is true that the decision was not pronom
d ced in case growing out Of feder;
N election, but the reasoning OF the Court
" fatal to the annulled act i'll every appl
- cation.