The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-03-28

national government alone. Barron VS. The CITY OF
Baltimore. 10 Pet 25 T., Lessee OF Livingston, vs.
Moore, fet DOL Fox vs. Ohio, How, 434 Smith vs.
Maryland, Is How, 70; Withers Buckley 20 Hcw.,
90; Perycar Tho Commonwealth Wall, 479;
fwitchcll VS. The Commonwealth, Wall, 52l Ed
wards VS.. Elliott 81 Wall, $751; III now TOO late 10
question the correctness OF this construction was
said oy the late Chief Justice In Iwiicheli vs. The
Commonwealth, p. 325 The scope ana application
Of these amendments longer subjects OF discus
sion here They left the authority OF the states just
where they found H. and added nothing 10 the already
existing power OF the United States. The particular
amendment under consideration assumes the
isence oil the right of the people TO assemble for lawful
purposes ana protects II against encroachment by
Congress- The right was not created by the amend
ment neither was It's continuance guaranteed except
against Congressional interference For their
protection in enjoyment therefore the people must
look 10 the states There where the power for that
purpose originally placed. and II has been
surrendered 10 tho United states. The right Of the
people peaceably TO assemble for the purpose OF petit
tonng Congress for redress OF grievances for any
thing connected with the powers or duties OF the ma
tona government Is an attribute OF national citizen
ship, and such under the protection Of and guaran
teed by the United States The very idea OF govern
Inent republican in FORM implies rIgEt on the part
OF Its citizens TO meet peaceably for consultation in
respect TO public affairs and TO petition for redress Of
grievances H. as IL has been alleged IN these counts,
the object Of the defendant was TO prevent meeting
for such purpose the would have been within
the statute and within the scope of the sovereignty of
the United States. Such however, is not the case
The offence stated IN the indictments viii be made
out If II be shown that the object OF the conspiracy
was to prevent meeting for any lawful purpose what
ever The second and tenth counts are
EQUALLY DEFEcrGvE
The right there specified is that of bearing for
n lawful purpose This is not right granted by the
constitution Neither is II IN any manner dependent
upon that instrument for its existence. The second
amendment declares that It shall not be nringed but
this AS has been seen, means no more than that IL
shall not he rnged by Congress This IS one OF the
amendments that have other effect than 10 restrict
the powers Of the national government leaving the
people to look for their protection against any violation
by their fellow citizens OF tho rights IT recognizes 10
what Is called, In the City of New York Milne
III Pet, 1880, 'the powers which relate to merely
municipal legislation" or what was, perhaps, more
properly called 'ntcrnal police" not surrendered
restrained by the constitution OF the United States The
third and eleventh counts are
MORE OBJECTIONABLE
They charge the intent TO have been TO deprive the
citizens named they living in louisiana OF their
spectve several lives and liberty person. without due
process OF law. This is nothing else than alleging
conspiracy to falsely mprison murder citizens Of
United States. being within the territorial jursdc-
ton OF the state OF Louisiana The rights of HE and
personal liberty are natural rights OF man.
40 secure these rights, says the Declaration of In
deriving their just powers IRON The consent OF the
governed" The very highest duty OF the States when
was 10 protect all persons within their boundaries in
the enjoyment OF these 'nalenable rights" with
which they were endowed by their Creator.
Sovereignty for this purpose rests alone with the
States II is no more the duty within the power of
the United States to punish Tor conspiracy to falsely
impris murder within than IL would be TO
punish Tor false Imprisonment or murder itself
The fourteenth amendment prohibits State from
deprving any person OF life liberty or property with
due process OF law, but this adds nothing to the
rights OF one citizen as against arother; it simply fur
nshes an additional guaranty against any encroach-
mcnt by the State upon the fundamental rights which
belong TO every citizen as member OF society,"
said by Mr.. Justice Johnson, Bank of
Columbia OKely, Wheat. pa 1t secures tho in
dvidual IRON the arbitrary exercise of the powers OF
government unrestrained by the established principles
OF private rights and disrIbutve justice
These counts in the Indictment do not call for tho
exercise OF any OF The powers conferred by this pro
vision in tho amendment
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
o
have been TO prevent and hinder the citizens named
who were OF African descent aud persons OF color in
"the Tree exercise and enjoyment of their several
rights and privileges TO the u and equal benefit of all
laws and proceedings then aud before that time
enacted or ordained by the said State OF Louisiana and
by the United States, and then and there at that
time being force the same State and district of
Louisiana aforesaid for the security of their respective
persons and property then and there at that time
joyed ut and within SAID State and district OF Louisiana
by white persons being citizens OF said State of Lous
ana and the United States, for the protection OF the
persons aud property of said white citizens There
allegation that this done because OF the
color OF the persons conspired against When stripped
nothing than that the defendants couspired to
prevent certain citizens of the United States being
within the State OF Louisiana, IRON enjoying equal pro-
lection OF the laws OF the state and of the United States
The fourteenth amendment prohibits State from
denying TO person within ITS jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws but this provision does any
more than the which preccdes IL and which we
have just considered add anything to the rights which
one citizen has under the constitution against another
The equality OF the rights OF citizens principle OF
republicanism. Every republican government /, III
duty bound TO protect all ITS citizens in the enjoyment
OF this principle II within its power. That duty was
originally assumed by the States and 1t still remains
there The only obligation resting upon the United
deny the right This the amendment guarantees,
but no more The power OF the national government
Is limited TO the enforcement OF this guaranty. No
question arises under the Civil Rights bill Of April o.
1866, Ii STAT ~ which is intended for the protection
OF citizens OF the United States in the enjoyment of
certain rights, without discriminating account of
race, color previous condition OF servtude because
these counts that the wrong contemplated against the
rights OF these citizens was on account Of their
color.
Another objection is made to these counts that they
are too vague and uncertain This VIII be considered
hereafter IN connection with the same objection
other counts
THE RIGHT TO VOTE CONFERRED BY THE STATES
The sixth and fourteenth counts state the intent OF
the defendants To have been TO hinder and prevent the
citizens named being OF African descent and coored
IN the free exercise ana enjoyment OF their several and
respective rights to vote ut any election TO be there
alter by law had and held by the people, in and OF the
said State OF louisiana or by the people OF and in tho
parish OF Grant aforesaid. In Minor Happersett
II Wall Us, we decided that the constitution OF the
United States has not conferred the right OF suffrage
upon any one, and that the United States have
no voters OF their own creation in the
States. In the United States VS. Reese, Just
decided, We hold that the Fifteenth Amend
ment has invested the citizens of the United
States with new constitutional right when is ex-
cmption from discrimination IN the exercise of tho
elective franchise OF race color previous
condition o servitude From thus it appears that the
u
citizenship, but that exemption from discrimination in
the exercise OF that right on account of race &C, is
The right 10 vote in the States from the States
bnt the right OF exemption from the prohibited dis
examination comes from the United States The irst
has not been granted secured by the constitution of
the United States, but the last has been lnasmuch,
therefore, II does not appear in these
counts that the intent OF the defendants
was TO prevent these parties nom exercising
their right 10 vote account of their race, &C. il does
not appear that IL their intent to interfere with
any right granted or secured by the constitution
al he ia may suS hiatt
the cause OF the hostility, but II averred
This l. material TO description OF tho substance OF the
offence, and cannot be supplied by implication Every
thing essential must be charged positively infer
ontiay. The defect here is not in form. but in sub
stance.
STATE POSSESSES THE REMEDY.
The seventh ana fifteenth counts better than
the sixth and fourteenth The intent here charged to
put the parties named In great fear OF bodily harm,
and to inJure aud Cypress them, because being and
having been IN all things qualified they had voted lat
an election before that me had aud held according TO