The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-03-30

sense, He is an M. D., and has right 10
speak, and IS good authority
81 One week spent in the. eager pursuit OF
bass or trout In any of our streams would
do more to refresh the mind and inyigorafe,
the body than half dozen weeks spent In
nacinp up and down some lonely avenue,
with no other object in view than mere ex.
erc;sp. The man who has once experienced
in his palm the delightful sensation caused
by q good game fish at the end OF bis iine,
and does not seek to renew 1t from time TO
time, is certainly not to be envied."
THE LATE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME
CouRr.-The papers which assert that the
Supreme Court has decided that. Congress
had no constitutional power to pass the en-
forcement act mislead the public-uDinten-
tionally, of course. We published the opin'
ions in both cases yesterday. 10 the Loulsi'
ana case the opinion has some good sentences
as to the powers of the Federal Government,
but they are mere quotations from the Ian
guage Of the Constitution. The points de-
cided in the two cases were-frst, that the
indictments were defective, not charging
what would be an offence under the statute !;
and secondly, that Congress cannot pass a
constitutional act to punish a man Tor any
offence against the fifteenth amendment
unless that act makes the offence to hinge
upon question of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude. In a word, the act
il declared defective becase it does not con-
fine itself to the protection Of negroes but
provides for Furnishing offences committed
as well against all other classes of voters
as against negroes. This WAS In the Ken
lucky ease. In the Louisiana case we quote
the very words of the court:
There is no allegation that this was done
because of the race or color of the persons
conspired against. ..- ...E
Evidently IL there had been such an allega-
ton, the court would have held the indict-
ment to be good. g.
Again In the Kentucky case the Chief
Justice said in SO many words:
| We must therefore decide that Congress
has not as yet provided by appropriate
legislation " for the punishment OF the Of
fence charged in the indictment.
| And elsewhere be tells Us " bat the offence
charged in the Indictment was-as follows:
In this court the United States abandon
the first and third counts, and expressly
waive the consideration of all claims not
arising out of the enforcement of the fifteenth
amendment of the Constitution.
| After this concession the principal OUTS
ton left for consideration is, whether the act
under which the indictment is found can be
made effective for the punishment OF luspec-
tors Of elections who refused to receive snd
count the votes of citizens Of the United
States having all the qualifications of voters
because of their race, color, or previous con-
dition Of seryitude.
In neither case is there any aVerment that
Congress lacks The power to pass just such
an act as the enforcement act was in.
tended to be. But the court holds that
that body failed to use the proper words
to accomplish it's known purpose. The act
is known to have been intended for the
protection of negro voters, but owing to the
bungliDg of Congress (says the court, In eff
fect) that intent cannot be made operative.
Again: ...-s. .,......
cit has not been contended, nor can it be,
that the amendment confers authority to i'm
pose penalties for every wrongful refusal to
receive the vote of aqualiied elector at
State elections. 1t is only when the wrong
full refusal at such an election is because Of
race, color, or previous condition Of servi.
tude that Congress can Interfere and provide
for its punishment"
That is positive ayerment that Congress
has the power to pass law to punish an
election officer for refusing to receive ne
gro vote if refused because be is a negro.
But Congress has not done go. 1t tried to
pass such an act but failed.
Once more:
1nasmucb, therefore, as it does not appear
in these counts that the intent of the de-
PENDANTS was to prevent these parties from
exercising their tight to vote on account Of
their race, &C., it does not appear that it was
their intent to interfere with any right grant
ed or secured by the Constitution or Laws of
the United States. We may suspect that
race was the cause of the hostility, but It
is not so ayerred this is material TO a descrip-
ton Of the substance of the offence, and can
not be supplied by implication everything
essential must be charged positively, and not
irferentialy the defect here is not ia form
but ia substance.
We,haye quoted enough to prove that a
Democratic House Of Representatives, not
tie Supreme Court, saves US from the terrors
of Rew enforcement act.
|