New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-04-05
Communicated
The Grant Parish decision.
EDITOR REPUBLICAN,:

| tCOmmunlcateO
The Grant Parish Decisfon.
EDITOR REPUBLICAN,:
A careful analysis of this decision, that
may be generally we'll rstood, is i'm
portant at this particular time, just as tn
political Canvass is being opened.
This decision tends to explain the obiec
and extent Of the enforcement act of 1870
and all other acts passed by Congress 10 en-
force and carry into effect the amendment
to the constitution adopted before or since
the rebellion.
| The Indictment IN this case was pred
Gated on sexton six of the enforcement &C,
Of May 81, 1870, which is as follows:
| That it two or more persons shall band
| or conspire together, or 60 in disguise OF
| the public highway, or upon the premises O
| another, with intent to violate the pro
visions of this act. or to ipjure, Cypress
| tent to prevent or hinder his full exercise
and enjoyment of any right or privilege
granted or secured by the constitution OF
| laws of the United States, or because of his
having exercised the same, sroh person
shsu be held guilty of felony, and on con
| viction thereof shall be fined or imprisoned,
| or both, at the discretion Of the court; the
fine not to exceed $4,000, and the impr,son-
ment not to exceed ten years. and shall
disabled from holding any office or place of
honor, profit or trust created by the consti-
tuition or laws of the United States.
The question was, whether either of the
sixteen counts in the indictment charged
criminal matter made indictable by any
act of Congress! (
The court says:
To bring this case under the operation of
this statue, it must appear that the right,
the enjoyment of which the conspirators
intended to hinder or prevent, was one
granted or secured BY the constitution or
laws of the United States. IT it does not
so appear the criminal matter charged has
not been made lndictable by any act of
Congress.
The court takes up each count in the in
dictment separately and examines whether
the rights it is alleged the defendants in
tended to interfere with are such as had
been in law and in fact granted or secured
by the constitution and laws of the United
States.
The first and ninth counts allege the in
tent of the defendants to have been to him
der and prevent the citizens named "in the
free exercise and enjoyment of their law
full rights and privileges to peaceably as
semble together with each other, and with
other citizens of the United States for Q
peaceful and lawful purpose. These counts
do not charge that it was the intent of the
defendants to hinder and prevent the citi-
zens named of the right peacesbly to as
semble for the purpose of petitioning Con-
gress for q redress of grievances, Or for
any thing connected with the powers or du-
ties of the national government, but the al.
legation in the count is general. The of.
tense, as stated in the indictment. would be
made ont if the object Of the meeting was
for any lawful purpose whatever. These
counts are now held to be defective.
The second and tenth counts allege the
intention to hinder and prevent the citizens
named Of the right of bearing arms for
lawful purpose. This is not in violation OF
any act of Congress. This matter is left en-.
tirely to the States. The only provision of
the constitution Of the United States on
this subject is to prohibit Congress from in
fringing this right. Consequently, these
counts have no foundation in the laws of
the United States to rest on.
The third and eleventh counts charge the
intent of defendants to deprive the citizens
they being in Louisiana, of their
lives and liberty of person
without due process of law. The court
says:
1t is no more the duty or within the
power of the United States to punish for
to falsely imprisOn or murder
within State than it would to punish for
false Imprisonment or murder.
The court says the fourteenth amendment
does not cover these averments.
The fourth and twelfth counts charge the
intent to prevent and hinder the citizens
named, who were of African descent and
persons OF color, from enjoying equal pro-
lection Of the laws Of the State, and of the
United States with white citizens. 1t is
not averred in these counts that the wrong
az ainst the rights of these
citizens was on account of their race or
color SO as to bring the charge within the |
civil rights act of April 9, 1866. The four
.eenth amendment prohibits State from |
denying to any person the equal protection
If the laws; but this provision does not |
i'd nything to the rights which one citi- |
zen has under the constitution against an |
Dther. These counts were. therefore. de- |
ective in substance, and, besides, were too
vague and indefinite.
The sixth and fourteenth counts charge
ne intent Of the defendants to hinder and
prevent the citizens named, being of Afri-
an descent and colored, in the free exer-
Use aud enjoyment of their right to vote at
ny election to be thereafter held. It does
OF appear that the intent of the defend
nts was to prevent these parties from ex-
rcising their right to vote on account of
leir race, etc. It does not appear that it
as their intent to interfere with any right
ranted or secured by the constitution or
WIS OF the United States. Consequently,
lese counts were defective.
The seventh and fifteenth counts charge
10 intent to put the parties named in great
ar Of bodily harm and to injure and op-
ress them, because, qualified, they had
oted 1t previous elections. The court
Iys: - Il,
There il nothing to show that the eles-