The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-05-05
Highest Tribunal Il Passes on.
Election Bribery Case.
{ OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
Courts Have No Power to Extend Terms
q Of Criminal Statute 70 Fit Case
tasa3 Upon Which Congress Might
Il Have Legislated.

nv A.sociat.d 4 Press, \

d 7
"a WASHINGTON, May The United
States Supreme Court In an opinion by
Justice Brewer. tod ~ Il d ellvered an opin-
Ion In the case OF United States Marshal
james, OF Ker1tucky,fv VS. Henry Bowman,
involving the validity OF section 65o7 Of
I the revised statutes respecting the bribery
OF persons protected by tho fifteenth
amendment. Tho opinion affirmed the de-
$cision Of the United States District Court
Il for the w eatcrn District OF Kentucky, de-
8claring that statute Unconstitutional.
Bowman was Indicted for bribing negro
voters IN connection With the congress
$sional election in the Fl fthE congressional
District Of Kentucky In the election Of
1900. Being arrested, he sued out q writ
of habeas corpus on the ground tha the
statute was In $conttavention of the Fed
eral Constitution. The District Court
Ethereupon discharged Bowman, and the
government brought the case to the SUI
spreme Court which affirmed the opln-
ion. q 3s s /. tsi, 3
3 Justice a Brewer Il said 4 that II the con-
$stitutionalitys Of the section In question
could not be SUSTAINED the indictment
must fall |. and referring to the statute
4 tle said on its face the sect ion purports
TO be an exercise OF the powora granted
to Congress by the fifteenth amendment,
for It declares q punishment upon any
one who. by means Of bribery, prevents
another to whom tho rights Of suf-
4frage Is guaranteed by such amendment
from exercising that right. But that
amendment relates solelyiSto action by
the United States, or by any State, and
does not contemplate wrongful Individual
acts. * 5tS3S S3} Z $4 ss IL }S
d ,4I Il CANNOT BE B8sUsTAINED. n
as He quoted authorities to show that a
statute which purports to punish purely
action cannot be suS stained ns
+ tho absolute power conferred by the M
teenth amendment upon Congress to pre-
vent action by the State through some
/ one or moro OF It's official representatives.
and that an Indictment which charges no
determination owing to the race, color
or conditi OF servitude is likewise des-
titute OF support by such amendment. ;sfTS2S
Justice Brewer added that the court
Is fully sensib BILE OF the great wrong which
issaid that 1t does not question theEpower
OF Congress to punish such offenses when
committed In respect to the election OF
Federal o fflcials. At Il the same time It
Is all important that a. criminal statute
should define clearly the offense which
siti purports to punish. and when SO de-
R fined II t should IL be within the limits OF
the power of the legislative BODY enacting
1T Congress has no power to punish brib-
cry at all elections. The limits Of its
power are ,in respect to elections 3, IN
which the nation is directly Interested or
In which some mandate OF the national
3Constitutionls is dlsobeyed. and the courts
are not at II lber tyl a to make a criminal
statute broad and comprehensive&ing in Its
terms, and these terms, beyon the power,
Sof Congress- to htl some particulArftrans-
action Will oh Congress might have legis-
lated for II It had seen fit.