National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-03-10
Federal Elections.

Southern buldozers will not find much
comfort in the decision of the supreme court
of the United States in the Georgia kuklux
cases. The question presented in these cases
had been frequently passed upon before, but
tho counsel for kuklux raiders are singularly
persistent, and are never satisfied until the
tribunal of final resort tells them that the
United States government has authority to
protect voters at elections for members of
congress from intimidation and violence. In
all the cases that have been tried since the
passage of the enforcement acts this doctrine
has been distinctly affirmed, and it is not
likely that the supreme court will ever over
throw the principle which it has established.
If United States attorneys are careful in
drawing indictments against bulldozers, there
is no danger but that convictions will stand
In the unfortunate decision in tho Grant
parish cases the supreme court held that con-
gress had not by appropriate legislation pro-
vided for the protection Of colored voters ut
state elections. The indictments were set
aside because they did not charge an offense
covered by tho fifteenth amendment. Ac.
cording to this decision il is not the right to
vote per Sc that is guaranteed by the fifteenth
amendment, it simply protects the voter from
being Disseminated against on account of
race, color or previous condition of servitude.
An Indictment which charges that legally
qualified colored voter was driven from the
! polls at a state election must aver that tho
| wrong was done on account of the race of the
injured man, and the proof must correspond
with the averment or there can be no con-
viction in United States court.
Now, as a matter of fact, colored voters are
not maltreated on account of their race. II
they vote the democratic ticket the bull
dozers do not modest them. They are driven
from the polls, not because they arc negroes,
but because they are republicans. Hence,
when colored voter has been whipped or
killed, it is impossible to prove that the
otfense was committed on account of the
color of the victim. On the contrary, it ia
|
color, but his politics, that subjected him to
outrage For this reason no attempt has been
made to protect colored voters by prosecutions
in the United States courts, when the wrongs
complained of were committed at state OF
municipal elections, since the decision of the
supreme court in the Cruikshank case was
promulgated (1s75).
Although vast maj Ority of the intelligent
republicans in the United States are of tn,
opinion that the supreme court took entirely
too narrow a view of the scope aud purpose
Of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments
yet they are obliged to accept this decision
as law, although the practical effect has beer
to disfranchise the great body of coloreC
voters in the south as far as participation il
the local governments is concerned. Will
regard to elections for members Of con
gress however, the case is entirely different
The question Of discrimination on account o.
color is entirely eliminated, and men who
violate the laws are liable to punishment
; whether they are influenced by race preju
dice, political malignity, or ordinary ras
cality
Justice Miller, in pronouncing the opinion
of the court in the Marlborough case lays
, down the broad doctrine that congress ha
power under the constitution to pass laws 70
\ the protection Of federal elections from o.