Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1882-08-31
M(iseellaueu,ts geadimg.
THE KUKLUX. AIT INVALID.

SOoS*~"~""*~~~~~" cs""NV~x}'
THE KUK.LUX. AIT INVALID.
4 SWEEPING DECISION By CIRCUITJUDGE
rl.. n. i WOODS. ." ''r.
The decision of Associate Justice Woods in
the case of lie Grand and others is as follows
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, EASTERN
....-# DISTRICT OF TEXAS.
Israel LIE Grand, plaintiff in error, vs. the United
States-Error to the District Court for the East
ern District of Texas = . .'.5
On October II. 1881, the United States at
torney for the Eastern District of Texas filed
an information against Israel LIE Grand, the
plaintiff in error, William Ridley and William
Laney in which it was charged that on May
81, 1881, in the. county of Camp, and within
the Eastern District of the State of Texas, the
plaintiff in error and the said Ridley and La
ney did conspire together and 60 in disguise
upon the premises of one Dennis Bolton, afree
male citizen Of the United States and of
the State Of Texas, who was of the African
race and descent and of black complexion, for
the purpose of depriving him of the equal pro-
lection Of the laws of the United States and
of the State of Texas on account of his said
race, and color, and especially for the purpose
of depriving him 1.-THE said Bolton) on account
of his said race and color, of his right and
privilege to give evidence in certain criminal
prosecution pending before one j. T. Coving-
ton justice of the peace, of said county Of
Camp, in the name of the State of Texas,
against the said William Ridley and one Rob-
ert Carr, and to prevent the said justice of the
peace from giving and securing to said Dennis
Bolton the equal protection of the laws, to
wit the right to testify in behalf of the State
of Texas in said criminal prosecution, and to
prevent the said justice from securing to him,
the said Bolton, immunity from personal dan
ger from and at the hands Of said Ridley, LIE
Grand and Laney, and that said defendants.
for the purpose of effectng said conspiracy,
having gone upon the premises of said Bolton,
did upon said premises assault and shoot and
infict great bodily harm upon the person of
said Bolton. -------
Only one of the defendants named in the in
formation, namely, the plaintiff in error, was
arrested by the marshal. He was arraigned
and pleaded not guilty, and was put upon tri-
al. The jury returned verdict of guilty, and
he was adjudged by the court to pay fine of
$500, and to he imprisoned at hard labor for
the term of five years in the penitentiary at
Chester, in the State of Illinois.
This writ of error is prosecuted to reverse
that judgment. Mr.. Charles A. Culbertson for
the plaintiff in error. Mr.. Edward Guthridge,
United States attorney, for the United States.
Woods, Circuit Justice.
Many points have been presented by coun-
sci for the plaintiff in error on which a rever-
sal of the Judgment is demanded some of
them are based upon alleged errors of the court
in it's charges to the Jury. AS the charges
complained of are not incorporated in any bill
of exceptions, but are inserted in the record
by the clerk, without any authorization by
the Judge, they are not properly presented,
and can not be considered. There are, how
ever, other grounds, properly presented by
motion in arrest of judgment, upon which a
reversal of the judgment is asked. I am of
opinion one of these grounds is we'll taken,
and as it is not only fatal to the judgment in
United States court for the acts charged in
the information, it will be alone considered.
The ground referred to was in substance as
follows Because the Act of Congress upon
which the prosecution rests was passed with
out any constitutional warrant.
The law, the violation of which is charged
in the information, is that part of Section 2
of the Act of April 20, 1871, III Statutes, PIP.
13 and 14,) which now constitutes section
5519 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States. 1t declares, if two or more persons
in any State or Territory conspire or 60 in
disguise on the highway or on the premises of
another, for the purpose of depriving, either
directly or indirectly, 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 him
dering 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 5000, or by impris-
onment with or without hard labor not less
than six months nor more than six years, or
by both said fine and Imprisonment. The
plaintiff in error insists that the Constitution
of the United States nowhere confers on Con-
gress the power to pass such an act and the
question for solution, therefore, is under what
clause of the Constitution, if any, can this
legislation be sustained?
The Fifteenth amendment can have no ap-
plication. That amendment relates to the
rights of citizens of the United States to vote.
1t does not confer the right of suffrage on any
one 1t merely invests citizens of the United
States with the constitutional right of eXemp-
tion from discrimination in the exercise of the
elective franchise on account of race, color or
previous condition Of servitude. (U. S. VS.
Reese, 90 u. S., PA; Z. S. VS.. Cruikshank,
90 u. S., 542; u. S. VS.. Cruikshank, Woods,
1927 Section 5,519 of the United States Re-
vised Statutes has no reference to this right
The right guaranteed by the Fifteenth amend
ment is protected by Sections and 5 Of the
Acts of May 81, 1870. (16 Stat. 141 Sections
5,506, 5,507, Revised Statutes.)
1t requires no argument to show that law
which according to the theory of the prosecu-
ton, and which, in fact, is intended to pro-
tect among other things the right of the citi-
zens 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 discrimination 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 only part of that
amendment, which can have any bearing upon
the question at hand, is the.frst and fifth Sec
| tiOnS The first section declares, "all persons
born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States, and of the States where
in they reside. No Stateshall 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 it's jurisdiction
the equal protection of its laws"
The fifth section declares "The Congress
shall have power to enforce, by appropriate leg
isation, the provisions of this article
Ii is perfectly clear from the language of the
has been guilty of no violation of it's provis-
ions, the section does not confer on Congress
the power to punish private individuals who
| actinr without any authority from the State