Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1882-08-31

clared by Mr.. Justice Strong, "that the pro-
visions Of the Fourteenth amendment" those
above quoted, ''have reference to State action
exclusively, and not to any action of private
individuals. So also in the United States vs..
Cruikshank, Woods, 3f6 it was declared by
Mr.. Justice Bradley, speaking of the same pro-
visions of the Fourteenth amendment: "It is
a guarantee Of protection against the Acts of
the State government itself. It is a guaran-
tee against the exercise of arbitrary and ty-
rannical power on the part Of the government
and legislation Of The State a guarantee
against the commission Of individual offences,
and the power Of Congress, whether expressed
or implied, to legis1ate for the enforcement Of
such guarantee, does not extend to the pas
sage of laws for the suppression of ordinary
crime within the States. The enforcement of
the guarantee does not require or authorize
CONGRESS to perform the duty that the guaran-
tee itself supposes it to be the duty of the
State to perform and which it requires the
State to perform. ..;I
Recurring to Section 5,5l9 of the Revised
Statutes, we find that it is directed exclusive
" against the action H individuals, and not Of
State or Territory conspire or 60 in disguise
upon the highway or premises of another"
&C. And the information in this cause, which
closely follows the statute, charges an offence
against three private individuals. 1t is there
fore evident that no warrant can be found in
the Fourteenth amendment for the passage by
Congress of Section 5,519 Of the Revised Stat
utes.
The Thirteenth amendment >-dd4clares that
ssneither slavery nor involuntary servitude,
except as punishment for crime, whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall ex-
ist within the United States or any place sub
ject to their jurisdiction"
Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation. Does this
amendment clothe Congress with the authori-
tyt0 pass the section under consideration
1 It may be conceded that this amendment
gives power to Congress not only to protect
the personal freedom of the enfranchised citi
zens, but to remove from them every badge
and restraint Of slavery and involuntary SER
vitude
Congress has by virtue of this amendment
declared that all persons within the jurisdc-
tion of the United States shall have the same
right in every. State or Territory
to give evidence as is enjoyed by
white persons. (Act of May 81, 1870. Sec. 1G :;
16 Stat, IA, Rev. Stat, 1919 The power
of Congress to do this has been recognized 10y
at least two of the justices of the Supreme
Court, Mr.. Justice Swayne in United States
|
ley in United States vs.. Cruikshank, Woods,
30S. Concedng, then, that Congress had the
power by virtue of the Thirteenth Amendment
TO confer on the persons enfranchised thereby
the same same right to testify as is enjoyed by
white persons, and to punish the invasion of
that right, the question remains, has that
power been exercised by appropriate legislation
by the passage of Section 5,5l9 of the Revised
Statutes ?
| 1>1, f1,n fu Of t1Q
Supreme Court of the United States to say
that it has not.
Under the section referred to it would be an
offence for two or more white persons to con-
spire, &C., to prevent another white person
from enjoying the right and privilege of testi-
flying in a court of justice. 1t would be all
offence for two or more colored persons, en-
| franchised slaves, to conspire with the same
purpose against white citizen or against
colored citizen who had never been slave.
1t is therefore perfecAEs clear that the law is
broader than the amendment by which it is
attempted to he justified. 1t covers cases both
within and outside of its provisions. The law
under which two OF more free white men could
be punished for conspiring to defraud another
white man of the right to testify can not be
based on the amendment which prohibits sla-
very and involuntary servitude.
The Thirteenth amendment does not, there
fore, authorize the law in question.
Upon this question the case of the United
States VS.. Reese, 92 U. S., 2l4, is in point.
IN that case the Supreme Court had under
consideration the constitutionality of the third
and fourth sections of the Act of May31, 1870.
(16 Statute, 141 Revised Statutes, Sections
2,007, zoos, 5,5O6.
The third section Of this Act made it an
offence for any judge, inspector or other otii-
Ger of election, whose duty it was, under the
circumstances therein stated, to receive,
count, &C., a vote of any citizen, to wrong
fully refuse to receive and count the same !;
and the fourth section made it an offence for
any person, by force, bribery, &c, or other
unlawful means, to hinder or delay, &c., any
citizen from doing any act required to be done
to qualify him to vote, or from voting at any
election.
The attempt was made to sustain these Sec
tions as warranted by the Fifteen amendment
to the Constitution of the United States. But
the Supreme Court held it not to be appro-
pirate legislation under that amendment. The
ground of the decision was that the sections
referred to were broad enough not only to
punish those who hindered and delayed the
enfranchised citizen from voting on account
of his race, color or previous condition Of ser
vitude, but also those who hindered and de-
any account whatever. The Court, speaking
by Mr.. Chief Justice Waite, said {: ''It would
certainly be dangerous if the legislature could
set net large enough to catch all possible
offenders and leave it to the courts to step
inside and say who could be rightfully detain-
ed and who should be set at large This
would to some extent substitute the judicial
for the legislative department of the govern
ment The courts enforce the legislative will
when ascertained if within the constitutional
grant of power But if Congress steps outside
of its constitutional limitations and attempts
that which is beyond it's reach the courts are
authorized, and when called upon must annul
it's encroachments upon the reserved rights or
the States and the people. And the court
declared that it could not limit the statute
so far as to bring it within the constitutional
power of Congress-, and concluded: 1--WE
must therefore decide that Congress has not
as yet provided by appropriate legislation for
the punishment of the offence charged in the
Indictment"
This decision is directly in point, and shows
that the section of the law upon which the
information in this case is based is not war
ranted by the Thirteenth Amendment.
1t is true that the information alleges that
the defendants conspired against Bolton on
account of his race and color, but the act OF
Congress cannot he helped by the informa-
ton. If the law is without constitutional
warrant no averments of the pleader give
it vitality.
There is only one other clause in the Con-
stitution of the United States which in the
!; remotest degree can be supposed to sustain
the section under consideration. l refer to
Section of Article 4, which declares that