The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1876-04-03
Ghe As!lailg Arans.
Continued from second page. J

to the same wrongful discrimination.
This is penal statute, and must be con-
strued strictly; not SO strictly, indeed, as to
defeat the clear intention of congress, but
the words employed must be understood in
the sense they were obviously used United
States VS.. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat, S5l. If,
taking the whole statute together, it is APP
parent that it was not the intention of
congress thus to limit the operation of the
act we cannot give it that effect The
statute contemplates a most important
change in the election laws Previous to
It's adoption the states as a general rule
regulated in their own way all the details
of all elections. they prescribed the quali6-
cations of voters and the manner in which
these offering to vote at an election should
make known their qualifications to the of
fcers in charge. This act in.erferes with
this practice and prescribes rules not pro-
yided by the laws of the states. 1t sub
stltutes under certain circumstances per-
Torrance wrongfully prevented for the
performance itself If the clector makes
and presents his affidayit in the form and
to the effect prescribed, the inspectors are
to treat this as the equivalent of the
specified requirement of the state law.
This is
A RADICAL CHANGE
10 the practice, and the statute which
creates it should be explicit in its terms.
Nothing, should be left to construction if
it can be ayoided. The law ought not to
be in such condition that the elector mag
act upon one idea of its meaning ard the
inspector upon another. The elector un.
der the provisions of the statute is only re-
quired 10 state in his affidavit that he has
been wrongfuliy prevented by the officer
from qualifying There are nc words of
Limitation in this part OF the section. In a
case like this, if an affidavit is in the langu-
age OF the statute, 1t ought to be sufficient
both for the voter and for the inspector.
Laws which prohibit the doing OF things
and provide a punishment for their viola
ton should have no double meaning. A
>ltlzen should not unnecessarily be placed
where, by an homes. error in the construc
ton of penal statute, he may be subject
ed to prosecution for a false oath, and an
inspector of elections should not be Tut in
jeopardy because he, with equal honesty,
entertalns an opposite opinion.
1t this statute limits the wrongful act
which will justify the affidavit to discrimin-
alton on account Df race, &c, then a citi.
zen who makes an affidavit: that he has
been wrongfully prevented by the officer,
which is true in the ordinary sense of that
term, subjects himself to indictment and
trial, If not to conviction, because it is not
true that he has been prevented by such a
wrongful act as the statute contemplated
and It there is no such limitation but auy
wrongful &C t Of exclusion will Justify
the affidavit and give the right to vote
without the actual performance of the
prerequisite. then the inspector who re-
ects the vote because he reads the law in
its limited sense. and thinks it is confined to
a wrongful discrimination on account OF
race, Ne, sutjec+s himself to prosecution,
if not to punishment. because he has mis-
construed the law. Penal statutes ough!
not to be expressed in language so uncer-
tain. If the legislature undertake to de
fine by sta ute new offence and provide
for its punishment, it should express its
will in language that need not deceive the
common mind Every nan should be able
to know with certainty when he is commit
ting crime, but when we go beyond the
third section and read the fourth, we find
there
NO WORDS OF LIMITATION OR REFERENCE
even that can be constructed as manifest
ing any intention to contine its provisions
to the terms Of the fifteenth amendment,
That section has for lis Object the punish.
meat OF all persons who by force, bribery
Ne, hinder, delay, Nc. any person tron
qualifying III voting. in view of all thes
facts we icel compelled to say that in our
opinion the language of the third and
fourth sections does not confine their oper.
aticn to unlawful discrimination on accoun,
of race, dc. If congress had the power tc
rovide generally for the punishment O.
/ ose who unlawiully interfere to prevent
the exercise OF the elective franchise with
out regard to such discrimination, the
language of these sections would be broad
enough for that purpose
1t remains now to consider whether a
statute SO general as this in its provisions
can be made available for the punishment
OF those who may be guilty of unlavfu
discrimination against citizens of the
United States while exercising the elective
franchise on account of their race, &c
There is no attempt in the sections now
under consideration to provide specifically
tor such an offence. Ii the case is pro
vided for at all it is because it come.
under the general prohibition against any
wrongful act or unlawful instructions il
thi iparticular. We are. therefore, directly
called upon to decide whether a lena
statue enacted by congress, with its limited
powers, which provides in general language
/ broad enough to cover wrongful acts with
out as we'll as within the Constitutions
jurisdiction, can be limited by judicial con
struction SO as to make it operate only OF
that which congress may rightfull,
prohibit and punish. For this purpos
We must take these sectious of the statut
as they are.
THE ACT IMPERATIVE.
We are not able to reject part whicl
is unconstitutional and retain the re
mainder, because it is not possible t
separate that which is unconstitutional,
there be any such. from that which is not
The proposed effect is not to be attained
by striking out or disregarding words tina
are in the section but by inserting thos
that are not now there. Each of the sec
lions must stand as whole or fall alto
gether. The language is plain, There i
no room tor construction unless it be as t
the effect OF the constitution. The question
then to be determined is whether we cal
introduce words OF limitation into pena
statute so as to make it specific, when, a
expressed. it is general only. 1t woul,
certainly be dangerous if the legislator
could set net large enough to catch al
possible offenders and leave it to the court
to step 10 and say who could be rightfull
detained and who should be set at large
This would to some extent substitute tn
judicial for the legislative department O
the government. The courts enforce tn