The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1877-06-06
The gutlaua 9ailu 6lobe
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 1877.
A "LAME AND IMPoTENT" GOVERN
MENT


Some of our learned cotemporaries are
seriously alarmed. The country is all 60
ing to smash, because, as they say-and
they ought Immediately apply for patent,
or copyright for the discovery-that Chief
Justice Waite, in his charge to the jury in
the Ellenton conspiracy case, said that
"Me poacer to punish the conSprdtOrs exists
solely in the government of the state, and
"under our political system the courts of
that government can alone be resorted
to for the trial and the conviction of
such offenders ," The government of the
United States, they cay, would ''declare
L" war against foreign government TO re-
" dress lighter wrongs Inflicted upon its
/" citizens than those committed at Ellen
ton, but that, as appears from the law laid
down by the chief justice, cit has no
"power to protect its citizens from being
L" shot down in any of the states in the
" Union"
This is all very terrible surely. The
government is certainly gong to smash.
The United States has no power to protect
its citizens, let US, therefore, have mon
archy at once, and be done with it. The
great trouble, however, with all this wall
is, that Chief Justice Waite said nothing of
the kind that he is credited with saying.
The whole burden Of his charge was that
the general COVER mt, and the e neral
govern ment alone, lid the power to pun
ish the "c0nspirators" if they were guilty
of the conspiracy charged against them !;
but that under our system of government,
state courts could only punish for crimes
committed against the laws of the state. In
other words if the respondents were guilty
of conspiracy" TO prevent Bush and
others from voting, on account of race and
color, then the United States courts had
sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the crime,
and that it was the duty of the jury to con-
vict, and of tho United States court to pun
ish therefor. But if it should appear that
there was no conspiracy of this kind, but
only murder or murders committed then
the crime charged in the indictment was
not proven, but only an offense against the
laws of the state of South Carolina, which
only the courts of the state had cognizance
of, and that they alone "could be resorted
" to for the trial and conviction of such Of
" Tenders"
Is there anything very alarming about
this doctrine? Is there anything new in it
In fact, taking the crime as charged-a
conspiracy to prevent Bush and others
from voting on account Of their race or
color-would it be new doctrine that the
United States courts were utterly without
authority or jurisdiction to try and convict
such offenders? Is it not true, as matter
of fact as well as OF law, that prior to the
ratification of the fifteenth amendment to
the national constitution, and the passage
of the so called enforcement acts thereun-
der, that the courts of the United States
were utterly without authority or jurisdic-
ton TO try and convict persons charged
with conspiracy to prevent one or more
from voting on account of race or color,
or for any other cause? Such charge,
even, was unknown seven years ago, and
United States judges had something ese to
do than to try persons charged with such
offenses or anything approaching thereto.
The creation of such crime may have
been political necessity-we have nothing
to say upon this question-but il is Come
thing entirely new to American law, and
the supreme court of the United States, a
year ago, took from ii its vital feature
and the country still lives.
But is not the law as laid down by the
chief justice good and sound law2 Is
there an American citizen that would have
it otherwise Take the very complaint
that we have referred to, and bring it home
to Vermont, and what does it amount to ?
Why, that the United States government
has the right and power to step in and try
John z. Phair for the mul der of Mrs.
Freeze, and that it is "a lame and impo-
"tent" government because II does not do
it, much more because it does not claim to
possess the power to do ii. Su, claim
OF power on the part of the general gov
eminent, If the power existed, could but
result in entirely doing away with the ne
cessity for state governments and state
laws, and in centralizing all power at
Washington. The general government is
supreme to certain extent, but 20 are the
state governments but the general gov
eminent has nothing to do with violations
of state laws, any more than the state has
with violations of laws of the United
States. The state of Vermont can punish
for a murder committed within its juris-
diction, but the United States has nothing
to do Herewith. The United States can