The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-12-23
Worth Looking Into.

United States Supreme Court, sitting In
the United States Circuit Court IN Texas,
rendered decision to which VIC beg leave
TO call the attention Of Judge IIuGHEs and
Judge BOND. According to the report in
the New Orleans Picaytne, made at the
time, the case arose In the manner about
TO be described. ISRAEL LEGRANp and two
ether white men were tried in the United
States District Court Of the Eastern Dis
trict Of Texas. before Judge MORRILL,. for
conspiring against negro named DENNIS
Bolton, and for going on BoLroSS prem
iscsand assaulting and shooting him, "es-
pccialiy for the purrcse OF depriving him,
the said Bolton, on account OF his said
race and color, OF his right and privilege
70 sive evidence In certain criminal pros
ecution." The constitutionality OF the
law under which LEGRAND and others were
prosecuted was denied by the defence, and
Ju Ice MORRILL,, OF the District Court,
ovcrruled the objection. The case was
taken to the United States Circuit Court
for Texas, and there Associate-Justice
WooDs reversed the decision OF Judge
MORRILL,, IN an elaborate opinion, and or
dcred that the prisoners should be dis
charged.
Judge woops's opinion was reported to
he rs follows:
"When the Constitution fourteenth
amendment) says that mo State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities OF citizens OF the
United states; nor shall any State deprive
any person OF life, liberty, or property
without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection Of its laws,' Congress has no
authority except against the State. When
Legrand and others conspired against and
maltreated Bolton, il does not follow that
the State of Texas had abridged Bottoms
privileges and immunities, or denied him
the equal protection OF the laws. Finally,
when a State has not violated the Consti-
tuition Congress has no power to punish
individuals who, without having authority
from the State, have been guilty OF such
violation"
o. That opinion covers every case arising
under any law based upon the fifteenth
amendment, though that ease arose under
the fourteenth amendment. The sub
stance of Justice WOODs's decision is that
no individual person can be punished for
an act which the State, and not the indi-
yidlal, is forbidden TO do, and which act
the State had not authorized him to do.
The fifteenth amendment uses the fol-
lowing words:
s..l.t It Ill Of t1,n tnI
States to vote shall mot be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any
State on account Of race, color, OF pre-
yious condition of seryituGe.'
1t is evident that this amendment comes
under the rule laid down by Justice
WOODS. 1t is the " United States" and
the estates" that are forbidden to deny
or abridge the right to vote. Individual
persons cannot, according to Judge
WOODS, commit the offence. just rs the
provision that no State shall pass any law
impairing the obligation OF contracts has
been always held TO be a provision which
no person could as person violate, so the
provision that no State shall deny the negro
rs such the right to vote means what it
says, and cannot be made to apply to per-
sons. If violated at all, it would have to
be done by Il State acting through its Lee
gislature. So says Justice WOODS.
Now sections $500 and jj1l Of the Re
rised Statutes Of the United States are parts
OF an act OF Congress. entitled "An Act to
Enforce the Right of Citizens of the United
States to vote in the several States of this
Union and for other Purposes" The fact
that those two sections are taken from that
act of Congress is mentioned in the mar
gin OF the Rcrised Statutes. There is,
therefore. no doubt about the fact that those
two sections are based upon the fifteenth
amendment as quoted above, seeing that
this amendment is the only part Of the
Federal Constitution upon which an act to
enforce the right to cote could be based.
Take, then, the opinion Of Justice WOODS,
OF the Supreme Court OF the United states,
in the Texas case, and apply ii TO this
ease, and what will become of the prosccu.
tons in the United States Circuit Court il
this city: All these are carried on under
law based upon an amendment which, ht
says, authorizes no such law TO he paSsct
by Congress. Almost every argument, i
not every one, quoted by Judge HUGHES il
his letter to us, from the opinion Of the Su
prcme Court OF the United States in c.
pdrte S;eJotd, was based upon Art. L., sec
w., of the Federal Constitution. But tn
title OF the act under which these prosccu
lions are being carried OH shows that tina
act was not based upon this Article l..
sec. iv.
We concede that Justice WooDs's opin
ion seems TO be combatted by that OF til,
Supreme Court, but as his was rendered
last, and, being himself upon the Supreme
Bench, rendered with full knowledge o
the opinions OF the court OF last resort, W,
cite 1t as worthy OF the attention Of Judge
BOND md HUGHES.