The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1876-04-13

laws of the United States, or because OF
his having exercised the same, such
person shall be held guilty of felony, and
on conviction thereof shall be fined or
imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of
the court, the fine not to exceed $1,000
and the Imprisonment not to exceed ten
years, and shall, moreover, be thereafter
Ineligible to and disabled from holding
any Office or place of honor, profit or
trust created by the constitution or laws
of the United States"
The question certified arose upon
motion in arrest of judgment after a YER
dict of guilty generally upon the whole
sixteen counts, and is stated to be
whether the said sixteen counts of said
Indictment are severally good and sufi-
cient in law, and contain charges of
criminal matter indictable under the
laws of the United States. The general
charge in the first eight counts is that of
"banding," and in the second eight that
of "conspiring" together to injure,
oppress, threaten and intimidate Levi
Nelson and Alexander Tilman, citizens of
the United States, of African descent,
and persons of color, with the intent
thereby to hinder and prevent them in
their free exercise and enjoyment of
rights and privileges granted and secured
to them in common with all other good
citizens of the United States by the con-
stitution and laws of the United States.
The offences provided for by the statute
in question do not consist in the mere
banding or conspiring of two or more
persons together, but in their banding or
conspiring with the intent or for any of
the purposes specified. To bring this
case under the operation of the statute,
therefore, it must appear that the right,
the enjoyment of which the conspirators
intended to hinder or prevent, was one
granted or secured by the constitution
or laws of the United States. If it does
not so appear the criminal matter charged
has not been indictable' by any act of
Congress. We have in our political sys-
tenn a government of the United States
and a government of each of the several
States. Each one of these governments
is distinct from the others, and each has
citizens of its own who owe it allegiance,
and whose rights within its jurisdiction
it must protect The same person may
be at the same time citizen of the United
States and q citizen of a State, but his
rights of citizenship under one of these
governments will be different from those
he has under the other.
The duty of government. to afford
protection is limited always by the power
It possesses. The opinion here elaborates
the character of the government under
the constitution and its relation to the
States, showing that it was erected for
special purposes and endowed with all
the powers necessary for its own preser-
walton and the accomplishment of the
ends its people had in view. 1t can
neither grant nor secure to its citizens
any right or privilege not expressly or
by Implication placed under its jurisdic-
ton. The people of the United States
resident within any State are subject to
two governments State and the
other National-but there need be no
conflict between the two. Thus, if 3
marshal of the United States is resisted
and an assault made, the sovereignty of
the United States is violated by the re-
sistance and that of the State by the
breach of the peace in the assault. 50,
too, in the case of counterfeiting: The
citizen owes allegiance to the two depart
ments. so to speak, and within their re-
spective spheres must pay the penalties
which each exacts for disobedience to its
laws.
The government of the United States
is one of delegated powers alone. Its
authority is defined and limited by the
constitution. All powers not granted to
it by that instrument are reserved to the
States or the people. No rights can be
acquired under the constitution or laws
of the United States except such as the
government of the United States has the
authority to grant or secure. All that
cannot be so granted or secured are left
under the protection of the States.
The Indictment is then examined at
length. The first and ninth counts state
the intent of the defendants to have been
to hinder and prevent the free exercise
of the right to peaceably assemble with
each other for peaceful and lawful pur-
pose. This right existed long before the
adoption of the constitution of the United
States. 1t was not therefore a right
granted to the people by the constitution.
The right was not created by the amend
ment to the constitution, neither was its
continuance guaranteed, except as against
congressional interference. For their
projection in its enjoyment therefore the
peonle must look to the States. The
right of the people peaceably to assemble
for the purpose of petitioning Congress
for a redress of grievances, or tor any
thing else connected with the powers OF
duties of the national government, is an
attribute of national citizenship If it
had been alleged that the object of the
meeting was for such a purpose the case
would have been different. The second
and tenth counts are equally defective.
The right there specified is that of bear
inr arms for lawful purpose. This is
not a right granted by the constitution.
The third and eleventh counts are even
more Objectionable. They charge the in
tent to have been to deprive the citizens
named, they being in Louisiana, of their
respective several lives and liberty, with
out due process of law. 1t is no more
the duty or within the power of the
United States to punish for q conspiracy
to falsely imprison or murder within
State than it would be to punish for false
Imprisonment or murder itself. The
fourteenth amendment prohibits State
from dcpriving any person of life, liberty
or property without due process of law.
but this adds nothing to the rights OF one
citizen as against another.
The fourth and twelfth counts charge
the intent to have been to prevent citl'
zens who were of African descent in the
free exercise of their several rights, &c
There is no allegation that this was done
because of the race or color of the persons
conspired against. Stripped of verbiage
the count means nothing more than thai
certain citizens of the United States
being within the State of Louisiana, were
prevented from enjoying the equal pro-
tection of the laws of the State and Ol