The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-09-29

-
court is clear, emphatic, and unmistakable.
After stating what the law was, and what
the effect OF the fifteenth amendment was,
Chief-Justice WAITE says: tx ~
8 q It has not been contended, nor caf. 1t be,
that the amendment confers authority to I'M
pose penalty for epery unlawful refusal to
receive the vote of qualified elect2r at
State elections. 1t Is only achere the acrosag-.
ful refusal at such an election IS because OF
race, color, or precious condition OF serc1-
tude.s .s.-g1
Plainly, then, supervisors OF election
cannot do anything except to sec that per-
sons are not prevented from registering or
voting !" on account OF race, color, or pre-
Yious condition OF servitude." Aud even
il prevented from discharging this duty
What a btrlesque upon the word duty u
section 1920 shows that all they can do is to
complain to Mr.. peasants, who VIII file
statement OF the case with the clerk OF the
Democratic House OF Representatives.
But the Supreme Court uses language so
sunmistakabe in its meaning that it needs
no expositor. We quote again from Chief
Justice WAITE: s": .:s
uIf Congress had the power to provide
generally for the punishment OF those who
nnlawfully interfere to prevent the exercise
OF the elective franchise without regard to
such discrimination, the language OF these
sections would be broad enough Tor that
purpose. 1t remains now to consider
whether statute so general as this IS in Its
provisions can be made available for the
-hN n n
United States while exercising the, ELECTIVE
franchise ON. account Of Their, race, DC.
There is no attempt in the sections now
under consideration to provide specifically
for such an offence. II the case is pro-
yided for ut all it Is because it comes under
I the general prohibition against any wrong
/. ful act or unlawful obstruction in this par
ticular. We are, therefore, directly called
upon to decide whether penal statute en-
acted by Congress, with its limited powers,
which provides in general language broad
enough to cover wrongful acts; without rs
well as within the constitutional jurisdic-
ton, can be limited by Judicial construction
SO as to make it operate only on that which
Congress may rightfuliy prohibit and pun
ish., For this purpose we must take these
sections OF the statute as they are. We are
not able to reject part which is unconsti-
tutional and retain the remainder, because
it is not possible to separate that which is
unconstitutional, il there be any such,
from that which is not. The proposed
effect is not to be attained by stri-
king out or disregarding words that
are in the section, but by insert
!. ing those that are not now there. Each OF
the sections must stand as whole or fall
altogether. The language is plain. There is
no reason for construction unless it be rs
to the effect Of the Constitution. The Ques-
ton then to be determined is whether we
can introduce words Of Limitation into q
penal statute so as to make it specific, when
as expressed it is general only. 1t would
certainly be dangerous il the Legislature
could set q net large enough to catch allpos
sibIe offenders, and leave it to the courts to
step inside and say, who could be rightfully
detained, and who should be set'at large.
This would to some extent substitute the
Judicial for the legislative department
of the Government. The courts en-
force the legislative =. will. when ascer
tanned, If within constitutional grant OF
power. Within its legitimate sphere Con-.
gress is supreme and beyond the control Of
the courts; but il it steps outside, ITS con-
stitutional limitations and attempts that
which is beyond its reach, the courts are
authorized to, and when called upon in due
course OF legal proceedings must, annul its
encroachments upon the reserved power OF
the States and the people. To limit this
statute In the manner now asked for would
be to make new law, not to enforce an old
one. This is no part Of our duty We must
therefore decide that Congress has not as
yet provided by approp PIRATE legislation for
the punishment OF the offence charged in
the indictment, and that the Circuit Court
properly sustained the demurrers and gave
judgment for the defendants"
The above says in substance that IL Con-
gress passes any law interfering in stateN
elections for any other purpose than to pre-
vent discrimination against any man on ac-
count Of race, color, &C., then that, law is.
unconstitutional. The court will not sup
ply the omitted words. The only question
remaining is whether the same doctrine APP
plies to the elections which are to be hefdin
November
The November elections include those for
members OF the national House Of Repre-
sentatives; and the Federal Constitution
contains the following section bearing upon
these: :.a.. So /. s A.. d .; 81.
OECliON 4s l<aiIiClc LII j uS tAtlifSs lsAnCSSs
and manner of holding elections for sena-
tors and representatives shall be prescribed
in each State by the Legislature thereof :,
but the Congress may at any time by law
make or alter such tons, except as to
the places Of choosing senators.
Nov, Congress has by Inv fixed the
g time y for these elections, and has allowed
the State to fix the g places p There is only
the word 6 manner = left for Mr., Plea
SAINTS to hang bis supervisors upon. But
clearly he cannot do this. For, first, Con-
gress has provided also the g manner ,s,--
namely, that It shall be by ballot. Secondly,
1t b clear that Congress can do anything
affecting the election Of senators which III
can do affecting the election OF representa-
fiYes except g fixing the places q IN
doubtedly, then, Il ii can eonstitutionally
authorize Judge HUaHEs TO appoint super..
sylseTs q the election Of representatives. IL
cossld censti aushorize him ID M ~,
point nperyisors 70 attend upon the VIZ
elnla Legislature and supervise the election