Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1876-03-28
The Mills OF the Gods Grind SiOWIy-
The Radical Election and Enforce.
meHt Laws Declared I'm
constitutional.
The Defendants in the Grant Parish
Case Dischargei-SynOpsis Of the
Decision Of the Supreme
Court Points of
Law,
The ,Eentucky Election Case Decided
Judgment Of the Circuit Court
Aflrmed-Text Of the
DecisiOn-Etc,

| W ASHLNGTON, MaFcl E.-I1e Su-
| pTeme court today decided that the
| Federal election law under which Ger.
tain white parties were indicted for in
| terfering with the exercise CT suffrage
| Of colored voters, was unconstitutional
! and void. 1t is understood that the
court in Grant parish will to-day decide
the enforcement act unconstitutional,
thus affirming the opinion Of Justice
Bradley in the court below.
Text Of Decision i'm Grant Parish Case.
WASHINGTON, March 27-The dppI-
| sion OF the supreme court In the Grant
parish case is very elaborate. 1t says
! that there is nothing to show that the
I elections voted at were any other than
! State elections, or that conspiracy was
! formed on apcount Of the race OF the
! parties against whom the cOnspirators
were to act. The charge, IS made, is
really nothing more than O conspiracy
to commit breach OF the peace within
STATE. Certainly It will not be Claimed d
! that the United States lave tie power,
or are required to do mere police duty in
the States. II State cannot protect it.
! self against domestic violence, the United
| States may act uIoa the call OF the ex-
ecutive, when the legislature cannot be
| convened, to lend their assistance for
! that purpose. This is a guaranty of the
/ constitution, act section 4 but it ap.
/ plies TO DOlcase like thia. We are, there
| fore, of the epiuion that the frst, Sec
| Ond, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, ninth,
tenth, eleventh, twelfth, fourteenth and
! fifteenth counts do not contain charges
OF nature made indictable under the
laws Of the United States, sni that con-
Grnnanflrr q fhnrT -
cient in law. They do not show that it
was the intention OF the defend.
ants, by their conspiracy, to hin.
OF any right granted or secured by the
constitution. We come now to con .ider
the fifth, thirteenth, eighth AMI six
teenth counts, which may be brought
together for that purpose. The intent
charged in the fifth and thirteenth is to
hinder and prevent parties in their re-
| spective free exercise and enjoyment of
the rights, privileges, immunities and
protection granted and secured to them
respectively as citizens of the United
States and as citizens of the said State
Of Louisiana, for the reason that they,
being then and there citizens Of the said
State and OF the United States, were
persons Of African descent and race, and
peIsous of color and not white citizens
thereof; and In the eighth aod sixteenth,
TO hinder and prevent them in their
several snd respective free exercise and
enjoyment OF every, each and all and
singular the several rights and privileges
granted and secured to them by the
constitution and the laws Of the United
States. Toe same general statement Of
rights to be inteTfsred with il found in
the fifth and thirteenth counts; the
question is not whether it is enough in
general to describe the statutory offense
in the language of the statute, but
whether The offense has here
been described at all. The
statute provides for the punish
ment Of those who conspire to injGre,
oppress, threaten or intimIdSte any citi.
zen, with intent to prevent or hinder his
free exercise and erj )yment CT any right
or privilege granted or secured him by
the constitution or laws of the United
States. These counts in the indictment
charge in substance that the intent in
this case was to hinder and prevent
these citizens in the free exercise and
erjJyment of every, each, all and siDgu-
lar the rights granted them by the con-
slitutiOn. The accused has the right to
have specification Of charges against
him in this respect, in order that he may
decide whether he should present his
defense by motion TO quash the de-
murTer or plea, and the court that ii may
determine whether the facts will sustain
the indictment. So there the crime is
made TO clDsist in lawful combina-
tion, with an intent to prevent the en-
j iyment OF any right granted or secured
Dy the constitution. All rights are not
so granted or secured. Whether this
one is or not, is question OF law to be
dedided by the court, not the prosecu-
ton. Therefore the Indictment should
state the particulars, SO Rs TO inform the
court as well as the accused. 1t must
be made TO sppear-that is to say, ap-
pear from the indictnent-withOut go
ing further that the acts charged will, If
proven, support conviction fer the Of
tense alleged. The conclusion is irre-
sistible that these counts are too vague
and general. They lack that certainty
and precision required by the established
rules of criminal pleading. 1t follows
that they are not good and sufficient in
law. They are so defective that no
| judgment OF conviction should be pro-
nounced on them. The order of the cir
INlL OOu1I shaASsLAA6 JANE ny AhO
verdict is therefore affirmed, and the
cause Temanded with Instructions to dis
charge the defendants. Justice Clifford
dissented from the opinion, but con-
Cured in the judgment.
The Kentucky Election Case.
WASHINGTON, March 27.-ChiefJus-
tice Waite delivered the opinion OF the
supreme court in the Kentucky election
essp. 1t is very lengthy. After stating
| that the United States abandons the
! first and second eOunts, and expressly
valves consideration of all claims not
arising out Of the enforcement of the fif-
| teenth amendment of the constitution,
the opiulOn dstails the provisions Of the
amendment and Gays the power OF con-
gress to legislate at all upon the SUI act
Of voting at State elections tests on this
amendment. The effect of article l sec
ton 4 OF the constitution in respect to
elections for senators and representa-
tives is not now under consideration. It
has not been contended, nor can il be,
that the amendment cOnfers authority
20 impose a penalty for every wrongful
refusal 10 receive the vote OF q quail,
fed electOT at q State election. Ii is
only when a wrongful refusal, at such
81 c4eCLADllt - DEJAuEc Vi AaEEf GUAUE1 VI
previous condition OF servitude, that
congress can interfere and provide for
its punishment. II, therefore, the third
and fourth sections Of the act are beyond
tina. limit they are unauthorized. The
statute cOntemplstes a most important
change in the election laRs. Previous
u its adoption the States, az a general
rule, regulated all the details OF theil
own elections; they prescribed tbs
qualifications of voters, and the man.
neF in which those offering tC
| vote st an election should make
! known their qualifications to the officerf
| ia charge. This act interferes with
this practice, and prescribes rules not
/ provided by the laws Of the States. 1t o
/ substitutes under certain circumstances
| the performance wrODgfuily prevented
/ for the performance itself. II the eIoetoI
makes aud presents bis affidavit in tht
| form and to the effect prescribed, the
/ inspectors are 10 treat this as equivalent
/ Of the specified requirement Of the STATE
/ law. 1his is 8 radical change IL
/ practice, snd the statute which create!
il should be explicit in its terms; 10th
ing should be left to the eonstrue