The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-03-29


The Grant Parish case, from Louisiana.
and the Kentucky election case. were de-
cided by the supreme Court OF the United
States ON Monday. They involved the
most important questions considered by
that court since the legal-tendcr decision.
The indictment in each case was based
upon the celebrated Enforcement act Of
1870, and the Court was called upon to con-
etruc the third, fourth. and sixth sections
of that act.
The defendants i'm the Grant Parish
case were indicted for alleged viola
tons Of the sixth section. This pro-
hibits two or more persons from band
ing or cOnsuring together "to iulurc
Cypress, threaten, OF intimidate any clt.-
zen, with intent to prevent or hinder his
full exercise and enjoyment of any right
or privilege granted or secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United Sta'cs.'
The defendants were charged in the in
dictment with conspiracy TO do certain
specified acts. in violation of this pro-
vision. Were the rights which they threat
onod TO interfere with granted or secured
by the Constitution or laws of the United
States? If they were not, the indictment
was fatally defective.
Tie supreme Court has decided that
they were not. To appreciate the scope
and importance OF the decision, IL is ncccs-
cary to understand what were the rights
under discussion. one was the right OF
peacoable assembly for peaceful and law
full purpose. This, says Chief Justice
WAITE, existed long before the adoption
tt..,. 81.
and remains subject to State jurisdiction.
The States alone are authorized to punish
Its infraction. 1t was also alleged that the
conspiratOrs intended to interfere with
the rights of life and personal liberty.
for they were charged with conspiracy 10
falsely impIison or murder certain citizens
Of the United States resident In Louisiana.
These rights, say the Court, are the natu-
raj rights of man, and the sovereignty for
their protection rests alone with the
States. The only obligation resting upon
the United States is to see that the States
do not deny the right"
Again IL was nverred that the defend
ants sought to restrain the right of certain
colorcd citizens Of African descent 10 vote
at any election. The right OF suffrage,
Court two years ago, is not derived from
the Constitution Of the United states; and
as the indictment did not charge that the
intent was TO exclude the colored citizens
from voting on account of race, color or
previous condition Of servitude-so us to
bring the case within the terms of the If
teenth amendment-there was nothing to
show violation Of the Federal Constitu-
ton or laws.
From this il will be seen that although
the Supreme Court does not in terms de-
clare theIsixth section of the Enforcement
act 10 be unconstitutional, it does decide
that the brSpd Interpretation and apploa-
ton sought to be given to it in the Federal
courts below IS in violation of the rights of
The states anel the Constitution Of the
Cuited States.
In NE Kenruu1y election case, the ques-
hon WA whether the third and fourth sec
lions OF the Enforcement act were appro-
pirate legislation, under the Constitution,
To enforce the fifteenth amendment, which
provides that the right OF citizens to vote
'hau not " 9splad or abridged by thy