Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1883-10-20

liz oioO u peuhiby~OA HOW WV ~
81, Or0 fne OF, imprisonment for thirty days to q
year. 10 be enforced ms criminal prosecution.
Exemslye Jurisdiction l. .gsysn,t TO The district
arising under the wi - TaSfJghts and priSlie-
s e. s' ss ! VIZ ~ ~s 1sf "a l 6; Sal9 assd Rsssens 4.
in the dress circless IN thesters. : -, ..
: The court tn along and carefully prepared
opinion by Justice Bradley. hoids:
F~irst-rhat congress had not constitutions
authority to pass the Law In question under eth.
or the thirteenth or fourteenth amendment to the
constitution.
second-Enat tho fourteenth .amsndment ID
prohibitory. upon states only, and the legis-
enforcing that amendment Ia direct Legislation
ON matters respecting which the states are pro-
'hibtted from making or enforcing certain laws.
The Regulation necessary and proper for coun.
terscting and redressing the effects exch of Law
or act. That In iorblddlng the states. for exam
" without due process OF law. and giving con.
gress power to enforce the prohibition. it 10 moi
Intended 10 give congress power to provide q
liberty or property, which Would embrace u.
most all subjects of legislation. but 10 provide
modes of redress for c,unterscting the opera
ton and effect OF state laws obnoxious TO the
Third-That the fifteenth amendment gives no
power to congress to pass the sections referred
10. because that amount rela'es only to slavery.
gives congress- power to pass laws Tor ITS en-
Iorcement, and that this power only extends to
n ,meiy. :.si-very or involuntary s.rvitud.
and necessary incidents. snd the consequences
of these conditions. That it has nothing to do
with he different races or colors, but only re-
fers to slavery. The legal equality of the differ
ent races and classes and ciiizens being provi-
ded Tor in the fourteenth amendmendment,
fere with such equality. That il Is not hiring
nent OF the thirteenth amendment to refuse to
any person equal accommodations anu privile-
however. 1t may be vlolative of his legal rights.
That 1t imposes upon him no badge OF slavery
or involuntary selYitude which imply some sort
capacity incident thereto such. a. inability IL
hold property, to make contracts, to be parties
In court. etc., and that il the original civil
might be supported BIZ the thirteenth amend
ment. it does not therefore follow that the sot OF
1877 can be supported by it.
validity OF the law in the states, and not 10 the
territories or the District OF Columbus. where
the legislative powers Of congress are unlimited.
gress might or might not do under the power 70
regulate commerce with foreign nations and
amongst the several states. the law not being
drawn with any such view.
FIfth-lhat, therefore, it IL, the opinion OF the
court that the frst and second sections o I the act
OF congress oLMarch 1871 entitled ian act to
rights" are unoo1stiiutional and void. and
judgment should be rendered upon the Indict-
mehts accordingly. ..ijst az at5rs 81
At the conclusion OF the reading Of Justice
Bra'iley,s opinion. which occupied more than
an hour. Justice Harlan said that under ordina-
ry circumstances and in. Ordinary cases he
should hesitate to set up his individual opinion
In opposition TO that of his eight colleagues. but
IN view OF what NJ thoughs,the people Of this
country wished to accomplish. they had tri ed to
accomplish and what they believed they had 40
complished By means of this legislation; he must
his dissent from the court. He had not
had time since having that opinion, to prepare
a ststementJ of the grounds o fins dissent. but he
should prepare and dle one a. soon As possible,
and in theeneanttIne desired TO put apon record
this expression efhis Individual Judgment.
WAR LIQUIDATION.
Another interesting case Involving war Lexis
lstion was also decided. by the court Monday,
namely. the case Of the United States against
Edward Gale and VIM 8 Gibson brought here
on certificate from. the circuit court OF the United
States, district OF Florida. This was . suit
against the supervisor and clerk OF election OF
district No. 8, in Marion county, Florida, on
the occasion of the election of-a congressional
representative in 1875. The indictment charges
the defendants with the misconduct rs election
officers in stufing the ballot box with fraudulent
and abstractiDg the tickets which had
been voted. The defense was that sections ElS
and bal5. revised statutes, upon which the in
dictment was based. and section $40 under which
chosen a grand Jury by which the indie,-
ment was found were Unconstitutional and void
The court disposes Of the drst part Of the de-
Tense very briefly by saying the question Of the
validity of sections 55l9 and b5I5 has already
been decided by this court In the case Of Sisbold
and Clarke. goo U. g.. 81 1879 and WAS de-
term'ned in favor of their validity.
Section $40, upon which the second part of
the defense was based, contains . statement Of
the causes for disqualification and challenge Of
the grand and petit Jurors In the courts of the
United States as follows: Without durcss and
coercion to have taken up arms or to have
joined insurreotion or rebe Hon ags,nst the
United States; to have adhered to any insured.
ton or rebellion, giving it aid and com,ort,''
etc. In i"paaelling the grand jury which
found the Indictment, against the defendants,
iour persons. otherwise competent, were exclu-
ded rom the panel Tor Causes mentioned In tina
The court after q review of the
circumstances Us shown by the record
to decide whether section 40 IL
valid or not, for the reason that the
to the constitution of the grand
jury under that section was not raised In due
The court, however, gives q brief histo-
~ OF this law. excluding from iur,es persona
took part In the late insurrection, and com~
upon 1t As follows: 1t may lie proper to
call attention to the Singular; position OF this
section Iseciion s20). 1t was originally enacted
as eection ! Of the act passed June II; 1859, en-.
titled IAN act dehains stte different CAUSES Of
and prescribing an additional oath
for grand and petit Jurors in the United States
courts " stat .43O). At that time, 1852, 1t was
doubt very Proper and a necessary
law but after the rehabilitation of the insurR, at
states, the proclamation of general amnesty and
the adoption of the fourteenth amendment guar
anfeeing equal rights to all citizens of the Urited
states, there would seem to have been no lust
reason Tor a continuance Of the law, especially
as by far the largest portion of the citizens In
the STATES lately In rebellion would be disquail-
lied under 1t; accordingly. by the anh section of
an act mmo cslltd the enforcement act,
passed April ~. 1911, Q7 statute 15). congress,
after providing that In the prosecutions under
thai act no person should he q grand or petit
Juror who should in the Judgment OF the court DO
In completely with any combination or copspir.
acy punishable by provisions thereof. repealed
eA'u hfol eectloh OIL The act OF 1889, and no law
remained in this state until the adoption of
the revised statutes For some unexplainable
reason the revisors reported the section back
Into the revised statutes las section s20). al
though 1t had not been in force for more than
two years. 1t Is probable the fact of Its re-
peal was overlooked by congress when the re-
vision was adopted. and 1t is to be hoped their
attention Will be called to 1t. The questions GER
titled by the court bel " are answered by this
court as follows: 1t is the opinion of his court
ana 1t also decides that the question whether
aol2 anu 5sl5, revised statutes OF the United
states are repugnant to, and in violation Of the
constitution OF the United States, should be an
swered In the negative. and that the question "a
to the validity of section $50 of said revised stat
ntes 10 unnecessary to be decided inasmuch a
the obi'gatlon to the constitution Of this grand
jury under that section was not raised In duo
time; that the remaining questions. namely,
whether judgment of this court could be render
ed against the defendants on the indictments
found by a grand jury empannelled and sworn
under the section Aforesaid. and whether the In
dictment aforesaid charges any onenses for
which 1udgmer t could be rendered sgainst de-
tendauts In this court under the constitution anG
laws OF the United States should he nnave rpd IN