The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-02-07


that support and advocacy was to take. The
defepdants could conspire to prevent the ad-
ra al oPd be ELECTION to CONGRESS Of HE person
named without knowing by what means that
advocacy and support were to be- carried on.
and even before the means we're agreed upon
by the persons by whom the support and ad
vocacy were to be given. Might not the offense
Of conspiracy. as was said BY Bailey. justice
be complete. before 1t was possible to know or
aver what was the manner In which the support
and advocacy were to be given2
AS an indictment for conspiracy to do an I'M
lawful act need not show what were the means
TO be used, the otfense OF conspiracy being
complete before the means to carry out the
spracy e preye by II force and
threats any citizen entitled to vote from giving
his advocacy or support In lawful manner to
the candidate OF his choice, need not set out the
acts OF advocacy and support, for the crime OF
conspiracy may be complete before the form
IN which the advocacy and support Is to be
given is known to the conspirators or even to
the persons against whom the conspiracy Is
directed
together and enter into a conspiracy, by which
they agree. in order to prevent an Influential
person OF the opposite political party from
lar candidate, to arrest him and restrain him
of his liberty until after the election, and
actually carry their purposes into execution.
ton $500 would be complete and yet it would
DC impossible to, aver and prove what acts of
support and advocacy by the person SO re-
prevented by the conspiracy.
we are q opinion, therefore, that the first
OF advocacy and support which the defendants
are charged with conspiring to prevent Ia not
defective, In that particular, and as the second
and third counts do set out the acts which the
conspiracy was directed to prevent, without 1t
Is true, giving details of time and place. that a
torttort they are not open to the objection under
consideration.
O. In support of the second objection to the
indictment 1T is said that, under the law OF con
spiracies, should an overt act result in murder
the conspiracy is lost In the greater crime. The
indictment, ii is said. alleges that in the execu
ton OF the conspiracy the consprators shot the
parties against whom the conspiracy was
formed and it Is claimed that these allegations
show merger Of the lesser crime In thegreater,
and so, on the face of the indictment. show a
want OF jurisdiction In this court.
II Is sufficient to say. in answer to this objec-
ton. that. In the first place, the Indictment does
not disclose any crime committed by the de-
PENDANTS of higher degree than the conspiracy
charged. and II It did, It would not follow that
TINS court W fo DC oHsted q to try
that the defendants had been guilty OF MUIR |
der.that being an offense against the law of
Of the United States. and therefore not triable
In the Federal courts-this court would not be
ousted Of jurisdiction merely because 1t was
been committed against the laws of the State.
8. The third objection to the Indictment. which
was the one most earnestly pressed is that the
or rather. to state the objection more pre-
cisely. that Congress was without constitutional
authority to pass the act.
In the case of Fletcher Vs. Peck Grand 1928. |
Chief Justice Marshal said: The question
whether 2 law be void for. its repugnancy to
delicaey which ought seldom Ii ever to be de- |
cided In the affirmative In doubtful case. The |
court, when impelled By duty to render such q
could it be unmindful Of the solemn obligation |
which that station imposes. But 1t is not on
slight Implication and vague conjecture that the
~ haua
oended Its powers and its acts to be considered |
void The opposition between the constitution |
and the law should be such that the Judge feels |
q clear and strong, conviction Of their inoom- |
patibility with each other"
And in the case Of Dartmouth College vs. Wood |
ward. Wheat e25, the same eminent Judge said. |
speaking In reference to the constitutionality |
of a Legislative act: "On more than one occasion
this court has expressed the cautious circum-
spection with which 1t approaches the con ssSier-
alton Of such questions. and has declared that |
In no doubtful case would 1t pronounce legis- |
lative act to be contrary to the constitution"
Guided by these words of caution we shall |
consider the question now to be passed upon.
The clauses Of the constitution of the United
States which 1t Is claimed empower Congress /
to pass the act in question are section of article
1, which declares that The House of Repre-
chosen every second year by the people Of the
several States, and the electors Ia each State
shall have the qualifications requisite for elec-
Legislature" And section Of the same article
which provides that. THE times. places and |
manner OF noldlnR elections for Sena-
cribed in each State by the Legislature thereof |
but the Congress may at any time by law make I
Of choosing senators: And the last Clause 1s Of
section g. article l. which declares that Congress
shall have power to make all laws which shall |
cution the foregoing powers, and all other
powers vested by this constitution In the gov
eminent 9f the United States or in any depart
The question whether this legislation Ia SUM-
ported by section of article 1. above quoted,
depends on whether that section confers the
right to vote for members of Congress on such
electors In State as are qualified by its laws,
IS electors of the most numerous branch OF
Ferred. then 1t is a right which Congress has
power to protect by law.
Rights and immunities created by. or depend
ant upon. the constitution of the United States.
can be protected by Congress, Uaited States
yruikshank Idem $40.
It Is true. and has been SO said by the Supreme
Court Of the United States. that the constitution
1f the United States has not conferred the right
1f suffrage upon any one, and that the United
States have no voters of their own creation In
the States. Minor ys. Happersett, q Wall. ITS.
But this language referred solely to voters at
N election for state officers, and SO far as such
States vs.. Reese % q. S. 2is. the supreme
sffeet of article l. section 4. OF the constitution
IN respect to elections for Senators and Repre-
,entatives
The constitution does not describe class VIII !,
independent of State laws. are entitled to vote
or members Of Congress. But section Q Of
article declares In the most unmstakable
erms that members Of Congress shall be ch osen
~ the people Of the several States who shall
nave the qualifications requisite by the State
avs for electors Of the most numerous branch
u the State Legislature.
Now the question is. has an elector who Is
Iualifet by State law to vote for the most
numerous branch Of the State Legislature, a
light conferred upon him by this clause of the
constitution to vote for members OF
congress. To US 1t seems clear that he
hough without distinction as to race. color
II previous condition. to exclude a certain
,art OF those having the affiliations requisite
or electors OF the most numerous branch of
he State Legislature from the right to vote for
members of Congress. Would such an act be
Ilso that 1t would deprive the excluded citizen
i q right derived from the constitution Of the
United States. which says to him If you are
Had RI x-S,Na IN +he