The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-04-12

| to the elecUOn OF state or county OIL
ficers. they will be amenable to Federal
jurisdiction Nor do we understand
that the enactments Of Congress now
under consideration have any applica-
ton to such acts FIX parte Siebold,
100 u. S., 81.
NO OFFENSE AGAINST LAWS.
In this opinion, Judge Thayer con
Cured and he says: 1t is clear that the
act charged in the Indictment is no
! offense against the laws OF the United
I States unless the fraudulent ballot al
legged to have been received by defend
ant was a ballot for candidate for
| Congress- Again. Congress has no au-
| thority to impose penalties on a judge
4 of election for receiving a fraudulent
ballot unless the ballot is cast for a
candidate for some Federal office.
'In u. S. VS.. Belvin, As Federal Re
porter page 381, it is held that section
! 55O6, one of the Enforcement Acts, maxi
! ing it unlawful to hinder citizen from
| voting, is unconstitutional in so far as
| it attempts to regulate State or muni-
! cipal elections, but is valid as a regu
| Iation of Congressional elections.
I'm the case of U. S. VS.. Cahill, 9 Fed.
| Reporter, page 80, Judge Treat says.
| 1T is clear that no Federal statute can
| interfere with voters except at an cleo
| tion for representatives in Congress, and
! then only as to their protection in vot-
| ing for a representative in Congress.
| Hence it is essential that it he
! charged in the indictment that the OF
| fence was committed at an election held
| for representatives. 1t may be that the
! election in question was for some other
purpose, over which the Federal gov
| ernment had no control and with which
! it had no right TO deal
I'm the case of u. s. VS.. Seaman. %
Fed. Reporter, page SS2 it was held
! by Judges Wallace, Benedict and
| Brown that unless the offence related to
| voting for a candidate for Congress, the
United States. courts had no jurisdiction.
I COURT HAS. NO JURISDICTION.
In the Siebold case Judge Bradley
! says: 1t is objected that Congress has
| no power to enforce State laws or 10
punish State officers, and especially
! has no power to punish them for VIC
| lating the laws Of their own State. As
| a general proposition this is, undoubt-
| edly true; but when in the performance
| of their functions, State officers are
| called upon to fulfill duties which they
owe to the United States as well as to
! the State, has the former no means Of
| compelling such fulfillment? Yet that
/ is the case here. It is the duty of lhG
! States to elect representatives to Con-
| gress The. due and fair election of
these representatives is Of vital inn
portance to the United States. tx
| parte Siebold. 100 L. S., z04
I'm Brown VS.. Mumford, Is Federal
/ Reporter, Judge Hughes holds the sans
doctrine. There are too many decisions
of the Supreme Court and Circuit
Courts of the United States to leave
| this question doubtful, and when judge
Purnell charged the grand juries last
! fall all over the Eastern district that
! the Federal court had no jurisdiction
| of offenses alleged to have been COM
mitted at the August election, he fol-
| lowed long line of decisions Of the
| Federal courts
Il can find but one decision which
holds that Federal courts have jurisdia-
| ton of offenses alleged to have been
! committed at elections where no mem
| Der of Congress was voted for. This is
! the Lackay case, a decision rendered III
the District Court of kentucky by
Judge Evans, district judge. Judge Pur-
nell declined to follow the decision of a
district judge in Kentucky but pre-
ferred to follow the decisions of the
Supreme Court Of the United States
and of numerous district and circuit
| judges all over the country
RIGHT OF NEGRO TO VOTE.
- p0to
possibly Judge Evans decision may be
good law, and our contention also good.
These statutes were passed to prevent
the abridgement of right guaranteed
to citizen by the Constitution of the
United States. In our case the right
| alleged to have been abridged was the
right of the negro to vote. In North
| Carolina the right of the negro to vote
was not conferred upon him by the Fed
eral Constitution. Itwas conferred up
on him by the State Constitution, April
| "a. 1868. and negroes had been voting in
North Carolina more than two years
| before the Fifteenth Amendment was
ratified. The negros right to vote in
| North Carolina is a right conferred
upon him by this State and not by the
! Fifteenth Amendment.
I'm Kentucky this was different
| Prior to 1870 the Constitution of Ken
lucky restricted the elective franchise
/ to white men, and in Kentcky the right
to vote was undoubtedly conferred upon
the negro by the Fifteenth Amendment.
'In Yarbcrough's case 10 u. S. Su-
preme Court Report, page 651, Judge
| Miller called attention to this condition.
Speaking of the Fifteenth Amendment,
he saws: While it is quite true that
This article gives no affirmative right To
the colored man to vote, and is designed
primarily to prevent discrimination
against him whenever the right to vote
NAV be granted to others, it is easy 10
see that under some circumstances it
may operate as the immediate source
! of right to vote. In all cases where
| the former slave-holding states had nor
removed from their Constitutions the
words white man as a qualification for
voting this provision did, in effect, con-
fer an him the right to vote, because
being paramount to the State law, and