New-York tribune., 1876-03-28

has been one Of attributes OF citizenship under iree
when established found il in existence with the obea-
ton on the part OF the States to AFFORD n re
mains according to tho ruling OF Gibbons ag' oSuen'
o Wheat 2O3. ,
Amendments to the Constitution proposed and adopted
not intended TO limit the powers OF state GOVERN
mens in respect TO their own citizenship but On 90
the National Government alone. IL is now 100 iate 70
question the correctness OF this construction The scope
and application OF these are no cnwerpment
republican in form implies right on the par, o M s' y,
public ars and to petition for redress OF grievances
II IL had been alleged in these counts tne o9ect VI @
pose the course Would iave been within the statute and
within the scope Of the sovereignty OF the Uhlle a.,
the Indictment will he made If 1t be shown the object
OF the conspiracy was to prevent meeting or any % hw
equally defective The right there speced Is aht S, S
bearing arms for lawful purpose TINS Is no, & rsn'
er dep, that instrument for Its existence Ing
third and eleventh counts are even more e ci1
zen named they being i'll Louisiana. OF their
yes n and Sf else S sn
to falsely mprison or murder citizens OF tne U tn
9th Of the State of Louisiana. The rights of life
aud personal liberty arc natural rights OF rh hini
into The Union under the Constitution was TO protect ali
persons within their boundare. in the enjoyment OF these
their Creator Sovereignty for this purpose rests alone
with the States 1t is no more the duty or Wiinn we
power OF the United States IN punish for conspiracy 70
falsely mprison murder within State than 1t would
be punish for false IMPRISONMENT or murder iisel. 60
The fourth and twelfth counts charge the hlen, 10
have been 10 prevent and hinder the citizens aheu W
were Of African descent and persons OF eoIor III md
privileges" There no allegation that this was dod
because of the race or cpor Or Of Of e the cse at
present amounts to nothing more than that the deieh
s%5' ant mid SGtpreq states o 6cng within the state Of
louisiana fo snloyTSI eq9a s RGofGad Tntsd states
The sixth and fourteenth state the intent OF me
defendants to have been to binder aud prevent ,he c M
and enjoyment of their several ana respect
i've rights to vote at any election to be hereaie ~ %
had and held by the people in and OF the SAID Stac VI
louisiana by the people OF and In The Parish o ura
aforesaid From docisions t appears tat G ',inen W
ship, but that exemption from discrimination ~ the eA &
ercse of tha right on account OF race &C. Is & tIe % &
OF exemption from the prohibited discrimination CONES
rot appear in these counts that the intent of the de
PENDANTS TO prevent these parties from eNec&tins Ill
NOT appear that il was Their intent interfere with any
right granted secured by the Consi tuition or laws OF
eansc of the hostility hut il is not SO ayerred.
The seventh and fifteenth counts are better than the
sixth and foureenlh The intent here charged l. 10 nt
the parties named in great fear OF bodily harm anu TO IN
lure and oppress them There is nothing to show that
The elections voted at were any other tha nalo ei.o.
lions. that the conspiracy was formed on account
o. the race OF 'te paFneI The asiss csrge aS made
is really Of nothing more than conspiracy
We therefore of the opinion that the hrst second
tAird. IOurth sixth, seventh ninth, tenth, eleventh
charges of n criminal nature made ndctabie under the
laws of the United States, and that consequently thcy
are not good and sufficient III law. ~ .
We come now to consider the fifth and thirteenth aud
the eighth and sixteenth counts, which may be brought
together for that purpose The intent charged III lhe
Gith and thirteenth 10 hiuder aud prevent the parties
in their respective ana free exercise and en-,
ioymcnt OF the rights, privileges, and mnunitles Ana
IN the eighth and II teenth, "to hinder ana prevent
them in their several ana respective free exercise ana en-
iOymct of every each, all, and singular, the several
rights and privileges grJnted ana secured 10 lneh
by the Constitution and laws OF the tnIed
rights nterfered with is found III the nfth ana h
tenth According TO the view We take OF thesG
counts question not whether II Is enough III general
10 describe statutory OeIsc in tho language ot the
statute but whether the oense has mere been described
at al The statute provides ior tne phshhght Oi tonc
who cOnspire TO "iuiure tDreacn or 1nmldaie any cit
iZen with intent prevent or hinder his iul exercise au
enjoyment of any right privilege granted or secured TO
him by the Cunsti!uion laws Of tie United states
THESE counts the Indictment charge in substance That
the in this 10 hinder and prevent these
citizens in tie free exercise ana ENJOY mehl Oh sIoGs
each, all and singular the rights gIilnted lhein py the
Constitution, &c. There is specification OF any par
ii unr right The language l. broad enough to cover an
Ii is elementary LTlncplc or criminal pcaulhH that
where definition of Ocnse whether 1t be at COM
mon law by statute, ncuues generic terms ~ Il not
sufficient that the indictment shall charge the ofense in
the same generic terms in the definition, but IL must
state the Species IL must descend TO pafllcuIdIb'
fl Arch Cr. pr. and r. l., 2JlJ .
The accused has, therefore, the right to have Gpeel
cation VI the charge against him III THIS respect u Oiotf
that he may decide whether be should present hls de
by motion TO qUash demurrer or plea and the Court
that IT may determine whether Tue iacts VIII sustain lne
Tre conclusion il irresistible that these counts too
vague and general. Iney lack the certainty ana PIE,
cison required by the established TUeS OF criminal
pleading IL follows that they not good ana sclent
m law They are defective that 10 judgment OF CON
the Circuit Court arrcsting the Judgement upon te Ner
diet IL therefore affirmed and ne case leahded' WIN
instruct ions 10 discharge the dcIenGants
Mr.. Justice clifford dissented from the opinion, but
cOncurrcd IN the Judgment