Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-08-01

others before the United ates Circuit
Court for the Easterne sstri rofSTexss,
in which the constitutionality of section
l5519 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States-known as the ''ku klux
act'-was involved, and in which the de-
cision was adverse to the constitution
atty of that act, has already been pub
lished. We have since seen the full text
of that decision, and a production of its
main points, as well as a discussion of
its probable future effect, will be of some
interest.
1t seems that charges were made
against Israel LeGrand and others of
a conspiracy to prevent one Dennis
Bolton, colored, "a free male citizen of
the United States, from testifying in
court of justice. The District Court
found LeGrand guilty. and sentenced
him to pay fine of $500 and to be inn
prisOned at hard labor for term of five
years in the penitenhary at Chester, Hi
nois. This finding and sentence was in
accord with the section OF the United
! States Revised Statutes above mentioned,
and which declares that eff two or more
persons in any State or Territory con-
spire OF 90 in disguise on the highway or
on the premises of another, for the pur-
nose of depriving, either directly or indi-
rectly, any person or class of persons of
the equal protection of the laws or OF
equal privileges and immunities under
the laws, or for the purpose of preventing |
or hindering the constituted authorities |
of any State or Territory from giving or
securing to all persons within such State
or Territory the equal protection of |
the laws, each of said persons shall be |
punished by fine not less than $500 nor |
more than $1,000, or by imprisonment
with or without hard labor not less than
six months nor more than six years, or
by both said fine and Imprisonment.
Appeal was taken from this decision of
the District Court to the Circuit Court,
the plaintiff in error insisting that no.
where in the Constitution of the United
States was there any authority granted
Congress to pass any such act.
As stated, Judge Woods sustained the
plaintiff in error, reversed the decision
of the court below, and ordered the dis
charge of the prisoner. He held that no
authority was vested in Congress to en-
act such law by either the thirteenth,
fourteenth or fifteenth amendments, all
three of which had been cited in defense
of the act The thirteenth amendment
declares that neither slavery nor invol-
untary servitude, save as a punish
ment for crime, whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States or any place
subject to their Jurisdiction. The court
held that the offense complained of in
! this case could not be construed as slave
~ or involuntary servitude, and that
therefore the section of the law upon
which the case was based was not war
ranted by the thirteenth amendment
Neither, in the opinion of the court,
can the fifteenth amendment be
construed into giving the necessary
authority for this law. That amend
ment, says Judge Woods, relates to the
rights of citizens of the United States to
vote, but does not confer the right of
suffrage on anyone, but such right is con-
ferred by the State upon her citizens.
On this point the Judge decides as fol-
lows
at requires no argument to show that
a law which, according to the theory of
| the prosecution, and which, in fact,
is intended to protect, among other
| things. the right of the citizen to give
evidence in the courts, cannot be based
on an article of the Constitution which
simply protects the right of the citizen
/ to the elective franchise against discrlml-
nation on account of his race, color or
previous condition of slavery"
Nor can authority for this legislation
under review be found in the fourteenth
amendment to the Constitution. The
Judge holds that the only part of that
amendment which can have any bearing
upon the question at hand is the first and
fifth sections The first section declares:
call nersons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the juris-
diction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they re
side No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the priv
leges or immuDities 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
the laws, and the fifth section declares;
ssThe Congress shall have power to en-
force by appropriate legislation the pro-
visions of this article" Whereupon the
Judge decides that it is perfectly clear
from the language of the first section
above quoted that when a State has been
guilty of no violation of its provisions,
tine section does not confer on Congress
the power to punish private individuals
who, acting without any authority from
the State, aud it may be IN defiance of
its laws, invade those rights of the citi-
zen which are protected by the amend
ment.
Judge Woods, in his decision, tortlf1es
his position by various decisions OF the
United States Supreme Court, and ne
also alludes to the clause of the United
States Constitution which declares that
citizens of each State shall be entitled to
all the privileges and immunities of the
citizens of the several States. and'which
he thinks may have some remote bearing
upon the question at issue. BE decides,
however, that this section like the four
tenth amendment is directed solely
against State action, and that it was
never supposed that nnder it Congress
could pass a law which would punish
any private citizen for an invasion of
the rights of his fellow citizen conferred