The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-12-16


hoJd combat not one proposition which we
have maintained, and have no bearing
upon The same.
A correspondent yesterday criticised in
eur columns the following passage Of Judge
HpGHEs's letter:
"The State, in passing any laws affecting
congressional elections, can only do so by
authority OF the Constitution and Govern
ment OF the United States"
We supposed this language to have been
carclcssly used, and that Judge HuGnEs
meant merely to say that Congress could,
II 10 chose TO do SO, assume entire control
OF congressional elections. We shall not
charge HIM with meaning all that his Ian
guage implies until we hear II from him.
SELL
To-day we propose 10 return to his last
charge or instructions TO the grand jury Of
hts court.
Has Judge HUGHES put in jeopardy the
reputation aud the liberty Of some Of "the
good people Of Virginia" by the "false"
construction Of existing law and the
many-toneucd iteration OF false law"S
This query is not made In any captious
spirit but with the purpose Of leading to
q calm investigation Of a grave legal ques-
ton. 1t IL certainly done in no spirit of dis
respect 10 the Judge, for, although liable
to err, NJ all judges are, and commercially
jealous OF the Jurisdiction and authority
OF the court over which he presides, no
one can ru,hfully charge him with malig-
nant partisanry or q wanton disregard OF
the feelings or interests OF ihe people oil
his native State, on whose soil he has
right to feel cat home"
Judge HUGHES based bis recent charge to
the grand jury Oh sections 5508 and 5jl1
OF the Revised Statutes Of the United
States. Conceding everything that is
claimed by Judge HUGHES in bis letter Of
this week as to the authority OF the United
States courts 10 punish violations OF law
committed by State officers or by any other
persons in congressional elections, the
question still recurs, ought these citizeEs
Of Virginia 10 have been indicted by the
United States grand juryY or would they
have been indicted ii the law had been cor
rcctly expoundcd 10 them?
AZ 10 section 5joG, upon which Judge
HUGHES laid great stress in his charge 70
the grand jury, aud upon which the Dis
trict Attorney relies TO convict all Of the
employees OF Mr. MUSPoED's Office Of con-
spring and coniederating together to him
der, delay, prevent, and obstruct citizens
OF African descent from qualifying them
selves 10 vote a. the recent election, it viii
be nothing new for Us TO say that it is not
the law ut all; that IL has been declared
null and void for uncertainty by the SUI
preme Court oj the United States in the
case Of The United States Us. Reese ct ais,
9th Otto, p. 2i4,) feT this has been uttered
with "maDy-tongued iteration" by law
yers, by the press. and by the learned and
fearless Judge OF our Hastings Court from
the bench, and was not denied by Judge
HueHns IN his communication, although
the Dispatch had repeatedly called upon
him to answer in regard thereto. Some
lawyer taking up the cudgels for Judge
Hughes, did attempt to answer the ques-
tiou propounded by us by saying that the
Supreme Court had declared it unconsttu-
tional only so far as II referred to State
elections. How he or Judge HUGHES con.
ceived that idea We cannot understand. for
there Is nothing in the reported opinion
above referred TO which gives cOuntenance
to il.
This section (jJ06) is II part OF an act OF
Congress passed for the purpose OF enforc-
Ing the fifteenth amendment, aud the SUI
preme Court decided that il was not cap
propriatc legi.latlon.' Why not? Because
the law was too general in lis tcrins--it did
moi coniine itself in explicit terms to such
subjects only as Congress had the constitu-
tional right TO legislate upon. but provided
"gencrally for the punishment OF those
who unlawiully interfere TO prevent the
exercise Of the elective franchise" The
Court, applying the principle enunciated to
the case at oar, decided that statute so
general in it, provisions could not be made
available for the punishment Of unlawful
discrimination on account or race, dc.
Perhaps these gentlemen will say " You
have stated the decision correctly, but why
may not the law be made available for the
punishment Of offences committed at "A con-
gressional election, seeing that Congress
has the constitutional right to leeislate as
To such eioctions;" This is Just the rock
upon which Judge llUGUEs has gone to
wreck. 1t might apply il Congress had in.
serted the words "ior representative OF
delegate in Congress after the WORD
"ciection " a. we ind them in section DOLL
but II did not do so. II chose to make III,
section apply to "any election" Now il
i, perfectly manifest that Congress has nj
constitutional right to ieSislate as TO Stat,
elections, and that in 50 fan as this section
applies 10 state elections it is void.
Ii, then, Judge HUGHES will avol(
"sticking In The bark" and Will take up an(
apply the principle underlying the decision
in Uniied States as. Reese, he will lin,
that section 65O6 l. dead aud buried, ant
cannot nc rcsurrectcd for the purposes o
these prosecutions. In United States as
Reese the Supreme Count Of the Unite,
states said that "a penal statute onacte,
by Congress. with lis limited powers
which Is in general language broad enough
30 cover wrongful acis without as well a
within the constitutional jurisdiction,
cannot be ''limiied by judicial construction
so ~ 10 make il operate only on that whicl
Congress may rigttiGliy prohibit and pun
isil, for this would be 10 make new law