New-York tribune., 1876-03-29

thorzed Tho third section docs not IN express
limit the ofense OF inspector for w1ich tho pus M
mcnt is provided to a wrongful discrimination on , &c
count Of race &c Ts is bat u Is urEee ,n prs
when this section Ia construed with those Wnch Ro
cede It, and which, is claimed i refers IL 80 ,nI
tied The argument Is & ,nss ,SSse the od duty i Is 70
receive or permit tho requisite quancatSn s,,n
dPsn,e Tth actual sdaYt hereor is that
mentioned and prohibited in Section 10 wiz 'ir
secop esG Ga coSa.S d IN 5 M operation to tie
fu Discrimination. This is penal etatnte ana mus aot
construed strety-n9t so strictly ceso nrds H cmpoyed
must be understood In the sense they we're ~
nsea tnnited states VS., W anparent that II
was not the intention Of Congress thus TO iins
lon Of the act weSnnS give S CSaege IN the election
laws Previous to it's adoption the states as sce. ~ All
elections They prescribed the qualifications OF voters
aud the manner in which those Offering to vote at an an
election should make their qualifications TO tne
tce. and prescribes rules not provided by by,o1o ono
laws OF tho States. 1t substitutes under certain na
circumstances a performance wrongid,y I1e. Pre-,
vented for the performance itself II the eIect9r w.
prescribed the inspectors are treat this as the equiv
alent OF the specified requirement. of tbe State Jaw.
which CREATES il should be explicit i'll its terms Nothing
should Do left TO construction II u can De octor
law ought not 20 such condition that the eector
may act upon idea OF it, meaning aud the inspector
upon another. The elector, under inc pr0ysI9n3 90 b
statue is only required to state IN his aidaylt eias ~
has been ngfulIy prevented by the ofcer from qa
flying. There words OF limitation IN tlis lnt Ta
the section. la case like TN II an naN. 70 b ~ rp
language of the statute, It ought 10 DC sIclc t ,b
the voter and tho Inspector Laws VII. @ teir vio
doing Of Things. and provide puhsnle.it iticnsbopd liz
latIOn, sbOnld have no double meaning a r,r i'm
not DO placed where b an noeSs m sectad
the construction OF penal statute Do may m ~
70 prosecution for false oath; ana an insINe'O ih
elections should not be put in jeopardy because M
equal honesty eutertalns az oPposloV' Opbtcb will
this statute limits tho Wrongn oD' on accomnt
Of race, &C. then citizen who mares an % a'y which b
he has been wrOngfully prevented ny TIE omGer won
self 10 Indictment and trial. If not to conviction because
it is not true that he mas been preye'eu ~ ther f.
no such Limitation but any wrongful act OF exclusion
viii justify the affidavit and give the right 10 So.e WIZ" IN
inspector who rejects the vote because no reads the Jaw
in It's limited and thinks Il is coniued 10 Nf0ng
self 10 prosecution II not punishment, because ne mas
NJ scousrued the law Penal statutes ought not 70 De
latue undel takes 10 define by statute AeH
oy-nse aud provide for its punishment, u shodIu d
cciye the common mind. Every man shouiu DC nc
abe to know with certaintg gd Wnin tn no tra see.
ton ana read tho fourth. We lind there no words OF
manfeti1g any ntonuon 10 c0nne its provisions 20 the
terms of tle Fifteenth Amendment Ihat seeVh N INA mas
bribery &c binder delay NC, any person from qualify
ing voting IA view Of all these tacls we ieel % Goi
PEELED To- say that in our opinion the language OF the tara
unlawful discrimination on account oi race Gc' II Co
gress bal the power to provide generally for the hsn
rDt OF those who unlawfuy interfere to prevent me
exercise elective franchise without regard To- s9Sa
Discrimination the language OF these SECTIONS "Ouu W
broad enough Ior that purpose
TIE LAW TOO GENERAL.
Itremans 10 consider whether statute go general
a. this it's provisions be made available for tho
puni hment OF those who may be guilty OF unlawful
discrimination against citizens OF tho United States
while exercising the elective franchise on account OF
tler race There il no attempt In the sections now
under consideration TO provide spccinGay I9I suo ~.
II the case Is provided Tor at all IL Is because II
tha
ful act unlawful obstruction ID THIS p&rucuiar We
arc therefore directly called uIon 20 1eHs tb it Iiod
powers, which provides IN general language broad
enough TO cover WIOhSiM actS Nltio' aS az a.. 90 %,,iiai
construction make it operate Oiy o! ttt "hich
C"ngirs, may gbtfully prOhbi, punish. For this
n,9se we mist rske these sections the statute they
are We are not able to reject part wnlch IS
uncontituiiona and retain the remainder, because 1t
IS rot possible TO separate that winch II uncoh
stiutona, ii there be any shch, 1rom tiag whien w
is not The proposed effect is not to 90 attained by
striking out or disr,gardlrg words that in the
section but by inserting tho that are not now here
Eaon or the sections must stand as whOe' OF Ial an
altogether. The language is PLAIN There no room oI
construction unless 1t be ~ TO th9 eIssct Oh tie
Constitution. The question then 10 DC %
whether We introduce words OF Limitation INTO q
penal statute 30 as 70 make 1t specific Wle as eA
pressed, IT IS general o'y IL w2id corr " @ uin
ccroJs II the Legislature cOa,d SET hee IarEe
tho courts TO step inside ana hold VINO oo4i %
detained and who should be set at large hlS @DIu 20
some substitute ho Judicial for the legls i've
depart ent oi the G0verhnehl 10
isatiYe VIII Yhen ascertained II ~bu c'pshtutloha
SUPREME and beyond the control OF the courts nut II 10
sros outside OF lts constitutional Limitations aud at
trnpts that which IL beyond its reach the courts are
ouporZed to- and vhec called Gponi due course OF legal
proree,.ines must annui It's encrOsohments upon
the reserved power OF the states ana the people 10 t
tts statute il the manner now asked Tor Nohd e 10
MAKE now law not enforce old on9. Ihis IS no
rart Of duty; must Therefore decide tbal Con
gross has NOT as yet provided by appropriate legislation
for the punishment Ot the ciereO charged IN me hct
nrnt aud that the Circuit C0u!t property sustained lhe
demuIrCrs and gave alignment Tor iae deiendahts
This makes u unnecessary 20 answer any on tbe other
Gtrsoi certified. since the iaW which gives the pre-
6dmg idd "a the casting vote IN eases OF tlsloh, anu
autGOIiZcs q Judgment H. accordance WIN h'S opinion
try ed statues section $50, II we 1ud mat the Jds
ucuSas rendered Is correct, We nctH not uo more "'
affirm II, however reverse, al questions cetthet
which nag be considered In the inal determination oI
tbr case according the opinion express should ne
answered j.igmcu ii the CiIcut Court Is a'inei
Dissonting-Afr Justice Hunt. ,. -.
Justice Cnord diSselJed tlOin Tue Olluioh' puI
cOncuITet ia the judgment.
THE COURTS