The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1876-04-06
The enforcement Acts.

Strictly to the technical issues certified from
the court below that the lawyers OF the next
generation WHO consult Wallaca's Reports will
never know that the case the United States
VS.. ,Cruiksl,ank ct al was founded on a massa.
ere in which eighty persons were killed. The
record shows that the defeu lantS were indicted
4 for Il conspiracy ,tQer certain sections OF an
| act Of Congress approved Nav 81. 1870. ami
| through the Whale opinion the Chief Justice
makes no mention OF single fact that is not
disclosed by the Indictment. The section OF
the act of Congress OH which the prosecution
was based makes it IL penal offence for two or
more ersons to eonspire together TO hinder or
disturb any citizen in the exercise of the rights
and privilege gr;lnted and secured by the Con-
stitntion and laws of the United States. This
| involved an inquiry into the pecuar structllr..
of our dl;i form of government aud the draw
ing of Il broad inc OF distinction between Il e
rights protected by the States and the rights
protected by the United States.
The imdcnaent was drawn 50 as. to include
s 4 ta M Y ~ eas ssp'' i'at
the conspiracy hae. beer formed for the purpose
of preventing the people from ''peacrably as
sembng." This was sustained by The proof.
| for in point OF fact large number OF coloreil
people had collected at Grant Parish Ceurs
House for the purpose of assisting the Sheriff,
who was about to be dispns>eSsed ny force.
The Supreme Court. however, says that thu.
| clause of the c. Institution Which guarantee thu.
right TO peaceably assemble is Il mere rrohbi
ton on Congress. and prohibits that body from
passing any act abridging that right. The light
| of the people to s"aSsemble eXi>ter long before
1 the adoption of the Constitution. AMI is IAN
attribute Of free government" 1t must be pro-
| tected and upheld by the States.
Que most important qualification. however.
is made to the general assertion that conspir-
| acy to prevent Il psaccabr a sen,biage of the
people is ouly ii,iiclahlc iii Il State Court. Ii
the assembling is for the purpose o. ptitinning
Congress. Il conspiracy to prevent the same can
be punished in the United States Courts. On
this point the Chief Justice is very explicit.
He says: 1.-The right of lie people peaceay to
assemble fer the purpose Of pri,i"ang Con-
greSS for redress uf grievances or for any
| thing connected with the power and duties OF
the Federal Government is an attribute Of l,;i-
tiolal citizenship, and such under the pro-
| lection OF the United States. The very idea of
IL govei nment republican in form implies right
IN the part nf its citizens 10 meet peaceably
for consultation in respect to public affairs
and for Il redress of grievances. Ii it had been
alleged in these coilnt> that The object OF the
defendants MAS to Prevent a meeting for such a
| purpose, the would haze been within The.
statute aud within the scope of he sovereignty
| OF the United Sta es.'' We think that this is
Il broader construction than has ever btfnre
would seem to throw the protection of the
Federal Government around every political
meeting tina. is held for the purpose 1T discuss
| ing matters relating To the Federal Govern
ment. Two or more persons WHO 60 TO such a
meeting for the purpose OF Interfering with
the spt akers, or driving away those who have
| peaceabiy assembled, may be Indicted under
the sixth! SCI tinn of the act Of May 81, 1871.
ANA punished accordingly. So says the Supreme
| Court.
| Another right mentioned in :he indictment
is tile right II, bear arms. Ia the raid OIL Grant
| Parish Cn..rt House the houses Of many cosor'd
people were sacked and their guns Carried of.
The Supreme Court holds that this clause in th.
| Consi tuition is also merely IL prohibition on
Congress, and prote, is the right from any
abllgnent by the Federal authority. The
defendants were next charged with canspirinT
| to hinder certain persons OF African descent
FROM exercising all the rights and privileges
guaranteed bs the Constitution Of The United
States, but the Court holds that this is too
vague, and that the co;;nts in which this offence
| is charged s:e bad for want Of certainty.
| There will be no dissent among LAWYER, from
| this portion OF OF inon OF the Chief Justice.
| 1t will be seen that the Grant Parish c"nspi-
rators escaped from the jurisdiction of The Fed
cral courts through The defrc,ive "l,leadng"
! of the lawyer who drew the Indictment, The
| decision OF the Chief Justice denieS pfiiri
| pie ever conteudpd for by CONSERVATIVES Repub-
lcans but, Oh the contrary, di>tii city atfifm>
| the pnwe, Of Congress to protect the right to
peacAably assemble for the purpose of petit
toning Congress or discussing national affairs,
and ,pholds the Jurisdiction of the UilitesI
States courts over all offences committed in
pursuance of Il conspiracy to interfere with
this right.
The Kentucky case is the more important Of
the two. because it raises the question Is ufhe
power Of the Federal Government to prevent
discrimination against coloreI VOTERS ut State
and municipal elections. The Court holds
that the Fifteenth Amendment dops-l.nt confer
the lfght of suffrage on any one bit ii cohf"r>
another riglt--to wit. the right of exemption
from di>cr uailratun in tnceNsrcise OF the cleo
tive franchise on account Of race. cooran, pre-
vious condition Of servitude. We presume that
the judicial mind sees the distinction between
the two rights, but to the lay mind it is ot
very apparent. How, yer, the end attained is
the SAINT. The Supreme Court holds that
Congress has power to enforce this right by APP
prol,riate legislation. to pass laws for the pn-
isllnlent of individuals who coiispire to prevent
the exercise of tins right. and to give the Fed
eril courts jurisdiction over all offences com
mitteu in violation of said laws. And it is
further held that this exemption from Il =
elimination IN account of race, color aud pre-
viots condition Of >crvitude' applies to Slate
and tnllnIc1pli, It's well It's FttiUfaf ttCtlUS.-
The Fifteenth Amendment not only proulbit>
States from pnaking these DETERMINATIONS in
fxln. the qualification "f voters. ,il' it gives 10
Congress tn; power 10 pas, laws for the pun
>llnent of the individuals who interfere with
the exercise OF the right. Tll,. doctrine c,.te-
dd for by all the distinguished counsel wtln
appeared for the urfelluan,s in these Gases
namely. THAT the Fifteenth Amendment is only
a prohibition on Siatcs-i> completely swept
away BY this decision, AMI will never be heard
of again in judicial rncreslirgs. fhe act nj
May 81. 1870, is, however, detective IN one I'M
portland particular. The Congress by which it
was passed did not have the benefit OF til..
technical distinction drawn by the Chief jus
ticc between 1.-THE right of a coIored man to
Vote" aud ''tLe right OF exemption from dis
elimination on account of color in The eXrr-
else OF elective frauchist,' and in the third
and fourth sections of the act the provision
that the penalty is to he nilIcted catl,e the
Offences mentioned were Committed i'll Blitsll
ance OF Il purpose To prevent color.d citizens
from voting is not repeated Taking these
sections by themselves. they include offences
that may be committed in pursuance OF any
wicked purpose, without special references TO
Tie ''racr, color CT previous c"iiinol Of The
Victims" it is very plain, from the iiile "f
the bill and from the first TWO seclious, that
Congress intended tn punish all persons who
should Interfere with legally qualified colore,i