Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-11-27
TUESDAY. NOVEMBER Of, 1883.
Contestng the Election of Electors.

Contestlng the Election OF Electors
IfMAnOxs and QCAY and their co. conspi-
Tetors succeed ia making up case by The
aid Of any court, Federal or State, and con-
test the election OF the CLEVELAND electors,
a fitting opportunity will be afforded for the
Democrats and all others who believe that
TIE States have some rights which the Fede-
raj Government Is bound 70 respect 10
have declared unconstitutional all The
United States statutes concerning elections
which are unconstitutional. The oppor-
tunlty is particularly good owing TO tue
fact that large majority Of the Justices oil
the Supreme Court OF the United States are
Republicans and cannot be charged with
having been biased by party preiudices II
they shah come % The conclusion that any
Federal statute concerning elections Is un-
constitutional which Il based upon the as
sumption that Congress has the power to
punish persons for "dcnial" Of the right
Of negroes 10 vote. Mr.. Justice WooD, first Of
90 the members Of that court, we believe, de-
cided That tho fourteenth and fifteenth amend
ments operated upon States only; not upon
persons. This IL one point which should be
raised by the Democrats in any case which
the MAuoSg gang may manufacture. We
Riyeou iu-iance.
The fourteenth amendment provided Ithls
feature Of II is desJl 10 effect that any State
might refuse to allow negroes 10 vote, but II
any state should DO 50 rs representation in
Concrcss should be cut down. It's language
On this point wss as follows:
" But when the right 10 vote at any cleo
ton for The choice Of electors for President
aud Vice.Presldent OF the United States,
representatives IN Congress the executive
end judicial officers ol state, or the MEM
hers OF Legislature thereof Is denied to any
az the male inhabitants u such state, being
twenty-nnO years Of age and citizens % the
United States. or In any way abridged. ex-
cept for participation IN rebellion or other
crime, the basis Of representation therein
shall De reduced In the proportion which
thc number Of such male citizens shall bear
10 the whole number OF male citizeus twen-
ty~Oue years Of age iu such State"
10 Is easy % see thattbi amendment recog-
nized the right Of any State to "deuy" to
the negroes the right to vote. 1t declared IN
undesirable language that this "denlal"
could not Dc the act 81 a person, but must be
The act Of State. II State disiranchised
che negro the number OF her representatives
in Congress was 70 be diminished. NOpenaI-
" WAS denounced against any person; be-
cause no person could commit the offence.
a person, therefore, has 1t not 10 his power
within the meaning Of the Constitution TO
"deny " 70 a negro the right 10 vote.
The facts we have already cited show IN
what sense the word "denied" is used in
tne fourteenth amendment. But IL is still
more clearly used. II possible, in the same
sense IN the fifteenth amendment, which
reads as follows:
.'The right Of citizens Of the United
States 90 vote shall not be DENIED or abridged
Ly the Unitod states or by any state on ac-
count Of race, color, or previous condition
OF sertitude.'
Here is positive proof that no person can
within the meaning Of the fourteenth and
fifteenth amendments deny" the right OF
negroes to vote. And AS II isan offence that
cannot be committed by person, any law
based upon the contrary assumption Is be-
yond p doubt unconstitutional.
Now examine the Federal election
statutes claiming 10 have been intended
TO enforce the fifteenth amendment Here is
one ease: Section 2OlO provides that II any
person Is deprived Of otice "by reason Of
the denial 10 any citizen" Of the right to
vote on account OF race color, Sc, such
person may recover possession OF his Office
in an appropriate suit or proceeding. This
"denisl" must be the denial specified In the
ssid amendment, and therefore must be the
act Of the State. For the statute expressly
specifies that Il Is based upon "the denial OF
the right" guaranteed by the fifteenth
amendment and "secured herein chat is, in
the set. Is not that statute clearly uncon-
stltutional?