The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-04-24
THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT
JURISDICTION ONLY HOLDS
WHERE 1T IL VIOLATED.
I'm This Case the state Courts Prob
ably Have Jurisdiction-The
Opinion I'm Full.

nam MlitI, Ef1dnuti 0OlliS, ftdSelnldn
Muntz. Budd Taylor and Charles Alexan-
der. colored men. who were indicted on the
charge of preventing other colored men
from voting. In sustaining the defendants
demurrer the court holds that the indict-
ment is bad. He refers to the fifteenth
amendment TO the Constitution of the
United States, which prevents the rights of
the colored man from being interfered with
because he IS colored, and says that the in
dictment does not alIege that these men
were interfered with on this account. The
court further holds that If these men were
hindered from voting for any other reason
the state court alone can deal with the de-
PENDANTS.
The case grows out of an attempt of some
Democratic negroes on last election day to
prevent William Jackson. Herbert Wilkin-
son. James Richardson. John j. Critenden.
Mitchell Ritter. Stuart Gwin and others
from voting. the attempt being successful.
The defendants were proceeded against by
the United States district attorney on the
ground of a violation of the fifteenth
amendment. and the defendants were in
dicted at the November term of the federal
grand jury. Judge Baker. in giving his de-
ciston, says:
BASIS OF INDICTMENT.
This indictment is based solely on Sec
ton 5S07. X. s., being Section 5 of an act
entitled An act to enforce the rights of
citizens Of the United States TO vote i'm the
several States of this Union, and for other
purposes approved May 81, 1870. 10 Stats.
40, ct seq. This section reads as follows:
Every person who prevents, binders, con-
trolls or intimidates another from exer-
nfCfnr che ~f-l@ - $50 - -.
right is guaranteed by the fifteenth amend
ment to the Constitution of the United
States, by means Of bribery, or threats of
depriving such person of employment or
occupation, or or ejecting such person
from a rented house, lands or other prop
erty, or by threats of refusing to renew
leases or contracts for labor, or by threats
of violence to himself or family, shall be
punished as provided in the preceding sec
ton
This section. If valid, is broad enough to
support the Indictment, which closely fol-
lows the language of the statute. While
there is another provision OF the Consti-
tuition which would authorize the Congress
TO protect all citizens of the United States
without distinction I'm the right to vote
at elections held for the election of MEM
bers OF Congress-. yet it is evident that the
section in question is rounded solely on
the fifteenth amendment to the Constitu-
ton. This article of amendment reads:
" Section 1. The right OF citizens OF the
United States 10 vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any
State on account of race. color or previous
condition of servitude.
+" section 2. The Congress shall have pow
er to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation
POWER OF CONGRESS-
'It is manifest that no power is conferred
on Congress by the second section TO enact
legislation for the regulation and control
Of elections generally. nor for securing to
the citizens of the United States the right
to vote at all elections. The right of suf-
frage is not inherent in citizenship, nor is
it a natural and inalienable right, like the
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. Unless restrained by cOnstitu-
tional limitation the Legislature may law
fully confer the right of suffrage upon such
portion of the citizens OF the United States
as it may deem expedient. and may deny
ton Of the fifteenth amendment it was
within the power of the State to exclude
citizens of the United States from voting
on account OF race, age, property, educa-
ton, or on any other ground however arbi-
trary or whimsical. The Constitution OF the
United States, before the adoption of the
fifteenth amendment. in no wise inteTfered
with this absolute power OF the State TO
control the right OF suffrage in accordance
with Its own views OF eXpediency or pro-
priety. 1t simply secured the right to vote
for members OF Congress to a definite class
OF voters of the State, consisting of those
who were eligible TO vote for members of
the most numerous branch of the state
Legislature. Further than this no power
was given by the Constitution before the
adoption OF the fifteenth amendment to Sc
cure the right of suffrage to any one.
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.
1.-THE fifteenth amendment does not in di-
rect terms confer the right of suffrage upon
any one. 1t secures to the colored man the
same right to vote as that possessed by the
white man by prohibiting any discrimina-
ton o1,foSf him on account 90 rooo
or previous condition of servitude. Subject
to that limitation. the States still possess
uncomfortable authority TO regulate the
right of suffrage according TO their own
views Of expediency. The amendment de-
clares that the right of citizens of the
United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or any State.
While the amendment is primarily aimed
at hostile legislation denying or abridging
the right of colored men to vote. | am of
opinion that Congress possesses the power
TO secure the colOred man against the
deprivation of his right To vote by individ-
uals where such deprivation occurs on ac-
count OF race, color or previous condition
of serVitude. i think Mr.. Justice Bradley
right when he said. in United States vs..
Cruikshank, - Fed. Cas-. O7: Il am inclined
to the opinion that Congress has the power
To secure that right not only against the
against outrage, violence and combinations
on the part of individuals, irrespective of
state laws.
RIGHT OF COLORED MAN.
'But Section 5507 is not limited TO the
| deprivation of the right of the colored man
TO vote on account of race. color or prev
icus condition of servitude. 1t makes 1t an
offense TO deprive any colored man of his
rights TO vote even when such deprivation
does not occur on account of race. color or
! previous condition Of servitude. III the sec
ton is valid the ground of the deprivation
becomes wholly immaterial. But il seems
TO me 10 be clear that Congress is MOI
granted power TO make such deprivation
criminal except In the single instance of a
discrimination on account OF race, color or
previous condition of serVituQe. IL the
right OF the colored man to vote is inter-
fered with on any other ground, the State
alone can punish the ViOlater of that right.
The Congress can go no further than 10
protect him against discrimination where
such discrimination occurs on account of
race, color or previous condition of seryi-
tude. The power OF Congress to enact this
section Is bottomed solely upon this amend
ment. The effect OF Article 1, Section 1 OF
the Constitution In respect TO the election
OF senators and representatives is not here
involved. Nor can It be invoked 10 support
the validity of the section In question. As
we have said this section is bottomed solely
on the fifteenth amendment.
PENALTIES IMPOSED.
1T cannot be successfully contended that
the amendment eonfers authority to i'm
pose penalties for every conceivable wrong