The People's vindicator. [volume] (Natchitoches, La.) 1874-1883, 1878-11-30
At the Root.

Uul esteemed Irltnus III CauuO
parish will pardon us should we diff
fer, as We most positively do, with
them in their mode of proceeding in
the face of Leonard's polinode. We
had thought, and still think, that to
pursue the old way Of resisting fed
eral encroachments on the rights Of
individual citizens of States is but tri.
fling, aud that too in most indecent
manner. with the very serious issue
now before US. The utter folly of de-
Tending, by legal quibling and meta
pbor, the personal liberty of a subject
of this commonwealth before fed
eral court has been already amply
demonstrated, and We risk nothing in
asserting, that such is the very ex.
tremity to which our opponents in
vjte US.
Louisiana has before her a great
mission, and she, the greatest sufferer
in the sisterhood of States, must show
herself equal to the task. We are to
join issue on and decide before the
courts, the exact bounds of Federal
authority ; the precise limits of Fed
eral Interference, within the States.
Inviting Investigation, and meeting
it however successfully, is only beg
ging the question and settles nothing
in the end, as it has settled nothing
in the past with tones of pro and con
testimony already compiled.
Let us consider then, our defence,
and determine upon what ground the
Federal authorities base their claims
for the subversion of the reserved
rights of the States.
Leaving the appointment of super.
visors (under Sec. 4, Constitution U.
S. for future consideration, wo beg to
call attention to the authority. under
which Mr.. Leonard proposes to exert
his efforts 10 bebolf of Hayes and his
stalwarts. Art. Is of the constitu.
ton says:
"The right of citizens of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by
any State on account of race, color or
previous condition of servitude."
Now, we are no lawyer, but, we 10.
sist that no individual citizen of a
State can be called within the scope
of that amendment, and no "appropri-
ate legislatioD,' however ingeniously
worded, can give legal vitality to any
effort of Mr.. Leonard's or the Federal
courts under that article. 1t provides
in plain words that "mo State' shall
deprive any person of his rights on
account Of his race or color. This
State has not done so, nor attempted
TO do 50. On the contrary she has
amply provided for their protection,
both BY constitutional and statutory
law. Justice Brady has already de-
clded the question Of "police regula-
tions," and that decision has been sus.
tanned by full bench Of the Supreme
Court of the United States. The ques-
ton now to be met is, whether the
Federal government has the right to
come within the body of the States
and arrest and punish indiridual cii-
&ens thereof. Congress possesses such
powers only, as are granted by the
by the constitution. There is nothing
in Art. Is which is capable of being
construed to grant snch authority az
is claimed. On the contrary, the
meaning of the Article is plain and
perfectly expressed. 1t provides that
"neither the United States nor anu
State shall abridge the right of suf-
trage on account of race, color, &C."
1t 8 revolving to common sense to say
that admitting the charge that indivi.
duals had maltreated negroes, the
Federal authorities could step in and
punish. them. Her remedy is against
the States.
We insist this constitution, al battle
will be fought on principle. That
there will be no Sinking the issue !;
80 that we may settle for all time the
question of Federal interference in
elections.