The morning star and Catholic messenger., 1876-04-09
The Enforcement Decision

or COneDlTc VIII ~
der the full enjoy ment by any citizen OF any
right or privilege granted or secureo oy '"0
Constitutiop or laws of the United States'
and prescribes penalty for any such Or
fenso.
The Supreme Court, in its recent decision
of the I,ouisiana case under this act, oeeioes
or reafa rms several important points, lot IN
otance. lat. That the General Government
and the State Government are distinct ana
co-existent without conflict or concurrence
of powers ; that citizenship 10 t~o-ioio' 'ne
same man being citizen OF the Uener"
Government and the citizen at STATE
owing allegiance to each, ana enjoying
different rights under each with distinct
claim upon each for the protection OF those
rights which come under it's jurisd ictiou.
end, That even those rights OF man
which are considered inherent and lnailen
able are not secured to him by the Federal
Constitution unless specifically named or
necessarily implied therein, and the Gov
ernment thereby empowered to protec'
them. Thus, the right peaceably to assem-
BILE and the right to bear arms, which are
Inherent in all freemen, and even the r'gnss
of life AMI liberty, are not protected by the
Federal Constitution, but are left for pro-
lection to the State Government.
3rd, That the United States laws aud
Courts cannot protect any rights except
such as are recognized as rights in the Fed
eral Constitution.
4tb, That the right of suffrage is not con-
ferred by the Constitution of the Cnited
States. No man can vote unless empower
ed to do 30 by some State Constitution.
But, by the 18th amendment, the States
are prohibited from making in their
qualifications for suffrage any distinction
EbetWeen citizens on account of race, color,
etc. The right to vote is e1cluslvely oe-
rived from the State, though the right not
to be Disseminated against in the State
law. comes from the United States. The
language of the Court is as follows:
In Minor VS.. Hsppersett, 81 Wall, Us, We
decided that the Constitution of the Unlteo
States has not conferred the right OF suntage
npon any one and that the United States haS
no voters of their own creation in the states
In the United States vs. Reese, Just oecloeo
we held that the fifteenth amendment had IN
vested the citizens of the United states with q
new constitutional right, which 10 exemption
from Discrimination in the exercise of the
elective franchise on account of race, color, oil
previons condition OF servltude: FROM this II
appears that the right of suffrage Is not 6
necessary attribute of national citizenship, bu
that exemption from Discrimination in th'
exercise of that right on account OF race etc., ls
The right to vote in the States comes from th
States but the right of exemption from th
prohibited discrimination comes from tn
United States.
, The opinion mp to this point appear
clear and logical. Just here, however, |
= becomes somewhat ambiguous, apparently
. The whole scope of the argument in tn
dissection of several counts of the indict
i ment and in numbers Of illustration
3 given has been to the effect that CongreI
Is can pass no law to enforce "civil rights" {
IT any other kind of rights which have nj
n been recognized as such in the Feder
Constitution. The proposition is the
Ie affirmed that the right to vote is excl'
y sively of State origin and is not secured
T, the Constitution of the United States. I'll
y logical conclusion from those two premis
would certainly be that, therefore, no "E
81 forcement Act" could provide for protectiI
, the right of voting, except in 30 far as the
might be a determination made in Sta
=. laws on account of color, etc. In 9th
ed words, that no conepirirg among priva
od parties to prevent negroes from votil
", would infringe any right conferred by t
N Federal Constitution or be within the SEQ
lat of any possible act of Congress.
In spite of this apparent connection
ort ideas, however, the opinion goes on to in
ust that if it had been alleged in the indictms
in. that the conspiracy was not only to p
eat vent negroes from voting, but to Prev
on them from voting on account Of their ra
The ETC., then the Act would have reacl
ION the case. The Court says:
ses Inasmuch, therefore, as it does not appea
the these counts that the intent of the defends
,r. was to prevent these parties from e1ercis
their right to vote on account of their r
MY etc. it does not appear that it was their int
the to interfere with any right granted or secu
cres by the Constitution or laws of the Uh
-: States. We may suspect that race was
Iee' cause of hostility, but it is not so sverred