The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-11-09
THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE.
What tho Celebrated Grant Parish
Case Decided

At this time whoa Messrs. Eyarts and Sher-
man are talking so glibiy about Interfering with
State elections by the use OF the al my at the
polls, and when Radicals. both In the State and
elsewhere are counting largely upon Federal
Interference In the next general election the
suhjoined brief and cenr resume OF the Grant
parish case. which created 50 much Excitement
at the time, and which was Of vast importance
not only to Louisiana but to the Union. will be
read with profit and interest.
The resume Is from the pen or D. s Bryon.
ESQ. whose distinguished services at the time
and whose able letters to Attorney General Taft
on the powers Of tho Federal government in
State elections contributed much to the euci-
dation of vexed and dangerous question.
In the parish Of Grant ca.e 1t was maintained
on behalf Of tho Federal government that all
personal rights OF tho citizens or the State
such as iife, liberty, the right to vote. the right
to bear arms. the right 70 meet IL assembli J.:
etc-Were under ths protection OF the Federal
constitution and the laws VI Congress.
These rights were supposed 70 be protected
and Congress PASSED IN nct which was approved
May 81, 1870. entitled An not to enforce the
right Of citizens Of the United States to vote In
purposes" NG Statutes. IA 1t WAS under this
act tnat the indictments were found against the
parish Of Grant prisoners. Nearly one hun
dred citizens OF Grant and neighboring par
ishes were indicted. Only, nine were taken into
custody, although small army was sent up
there to hunt them down.
The United States summoned over hundred
witnesses. and nenrlyas many were called for
the defense. The trial lasted for about tWonty-
five days. and resulted IN mistrial.' The
second trial came on some two or three months
after. consuming about the same time and re-
sulting In finding three guilty and discharge
OF the others; Tee government had secured a
more tractable jury,
Judge bradley was kind enough to come all the
way from the North 70 cit with Judge Woods
and hear the motion.
Ins3sY r,Ai tY,f hair nj nj a thlt
case went VI 70 the Supreme Court. We took
the ground that none n tne pretenses " the
vote IL granted and dot rrntned by the States
that the fifteenth amandmtnt Of the consttu.
ton prohibits the Stat ! from discr Eliminating
and nothing more; that the protection OF the
citizen In his lite. liberty. person and property,
were under the laws ana authorities OF the
States. from the highest e the lowest:
under It's projection. and that tha govern
ment of the United States has power to pun |
glary. 81 arson ~ any other crime eouintiad
In the State Of Louisiana. Or any other state. /
unless, 1t be cnrmitted Within her forts. or
arsenals, or relates 70 her postoffia~. her rev.,
nue., or her coin, or her army or navy If t
the crime nj murder wara committed against /
the highest OH eer III the Uni Cd states III Lou
tsiana Ii would be " crime aEainstthA State and /
not against the United State- 1t would be- the
business Of the stnt", y, havn the criminal
business Of the State 'un NJ tp Al yand condemn
him, and not the courts OF the United States
The supreme COURT. after ong aaay. and
Notwithstanding the external pressure. matu
tanned our position and decided against the
government. dec airing the net unconstitutional.
Had the decision been the 81 her way. thu gov
eminent would have chunged altogether; the
States would have sunk into instgnttieanee and
the Federal government would nave tlerceforth
been oE,uipotant.
This ctse of the parish of Grant broke the
backbone of tho Republican party in Louisiana
auu III Inc uthern States. In South Carolina
TIA 'ku-ktEN' eases had gone against the de-
I Ats and many an un ortunat' citizen was
80 slny his Llnls In No. tnsfn leuitentiaries
md "a ! this rari.li Of Grani c.t-., y ed IL
the 5su4e Nay there Nouid ave tten lIt-e hope