The daily Argus., 1876-04-01
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

conferred by this provision IN the amend
| ment.
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
| The fourth and twelfth counts charge
the intent to have been to prevent aud
| hinder the citizens named, who were #
| African descent aud persons Of color, in
the free exercise and enjoyment of their
several rights and privileges to the full
and equal benefit of all laws and proceed
lilgs then aud before thai time enacted or
ordained by the said state o Louisiana and
by the United States, ane then and there
at that time being in force in the same
state and district OF Louisiana aforesaid fer
the security Of their respective persons and
property then and there at that tune en-
ioyed at and within said state aud district
,i L luisiana by white persons, being citi-
zens OF said sac of Louisiana and the
United States, for the protection OF the
persons aud property of said white citizens.
, There is no allegation that this was done
because of the race or culor Of the persons
conspired against When stripped of its
erbiage the case, as presented, amounts
to nothing more than that the defendants
conSpired to prevent certain citizens of the
United States, being within the state Of
= Louisiana, from enjoying equal protection
of the laws Of the state and of the United
States. The fourteenth amendment pro-
nibits state from denying to any person
within It's jurisdiction the equal protection
IF the laws; but this provision does not any
more than the one which precedes it and
(which We ha.e just considered add any
Thing to the rights which tne citizen has
under the cJuStitutl VI against another.
The equality OF the rights OF citizens is 4
principle OF repubhcanisip. Every repub
lean government is in duty bound to pro
'ect all its citizens in the enj yment of this
priuclple ii within lis power. That duty
was originally assumed By the states. anC
it still remains there. The only obligation
resting upon the United Sta',s is to set
hat the states &c not deny tine I...At Thi
he amendment guarantees. but TO more
The power OF the national government i
limited to the enforcement Of this guaran
Y ". No question arises under the civl
! rights bill of April 8, 1866, II Stat. -
which is intended for the protection Of cit.
izens of the United States in the enjoy
ment of cer;aic rights, without discriuina
ting on account of race, color or previ0u
condition OF servitude. because, as has al
ready been stated, il is nowhere alleged i
tHtsG GUuEAS ludt titG NiobS Piut ~
against the rights of these citizens was o
account of their race or color.
Another ohjectiou is made to thes
,, counts that they are too vague and uncel
" tain. This will be considered hereafter
connection with the same objection to othe
n counts.
on THE RIGHT TO VOTE CONFERRED BY TIL
IN IN STATES.
Of The sixth and fourteenth counts stat
the intent of the defendants to have bee
- to hinder and prevent the citizens named
being of African descent and colored
the free exercise and enjoyment Of the
several and respective rights to vote at ar
election to be thereafter by law had an
- held by the people, in and of the said sta
OF Louisiana, or by the people of and in tt
parish of Grant aforesaid. ln Minor V
Is. Happersett, 2l Wall, 178, we decided TIL
the constitution of the United States hi
not conferred the right of suffrage upt
J., any one, and that the United States ha7
no voters of their own creation in Il
states. In the United States VS. ReeS
zen lust decided, we hold that the Fifteen
es. Amendment has invested the citizens
om the United States with aew coDstitutIo
re- a. IiSui, NulCI 10 GACuAi 4 pAu GiSCIlAulu
ton in she exercise Of the eseetive fra
.ho chise on account Of race, color or preyio
III III condition of servitude From this it a
r pears that the right of suffrage is moi
"a necessary attribute of national citizenshi
aS. @ but that exemption from discrimination
"a "a the exercise Of that right on account
''0 race, &c, is. The right to vote in t
=, states comes from the states; but the rig
TN of exemption from the prohibited discrl
rge ination cones from the United Stat
iiiy The first has not been granted or secur
10 by the cons. .itution of the United Stat
but the last has been. Inasmuch, the
the fore, as 1t does not appear 10 these couI
the that the intent of the defendants was
; to prevent these parties from exercising tn
any right to vote on account of their race, d
hat it does not appear that it was their int
lem 20 interfere with aby right granted or
cured by the constitution or laws OF
ing United States. We may suspect that r;
,am was the cause of the hostility, but it is
est SO averred. This is material to descr
of tion of the substance of the offense, 4