The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-05-05
DECISION ASY/
 TO BREsS RY Opinion of tb 7 ,upreme Court. CASE OF HENRY BOWMAN A Statute Is Declared to Be
 Unconstitutional. Powers of Congress to Prevent Bri- bery in Elections-Question as to Protection Afforded by Eff
 teenth Amendment.
CASE OF HENRY BOWMAN

Washington, May 1.-The United States Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Brewer today delivered an opinion in the case of United States Marshal James of Kentucky vs. Henry Bowman. involving the validity of the revised statutes respect ing the bribery of persons protected by tho Fifteenth Amendment. The opinion affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. declaring that statute un- constitutional. Bowman was indicted for bribing negro voters in connection with the Congressional election in the Fifth Congressional District of Kentucky in 1900
 Being arrested he sued out e writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the statute was incontravention of the federal constitution. The district court thereupon discharged Bowman and the government brought the case to the Supreme Court.
 In announcing the opinion Justice Brewer said that no point had been made of the fact that the persons who were brbed were of color. Speaking of the statute he said:
 Juo1Clal ASS1e1AtiOu'
 "on It's face. it is clearly an attempt to exercise power supposed to be confer red by the Fifteenth Amendment in respect to all elections and not in pur- surance of the general control by Con- gress over particualr elections. To change this statute enacted to punish bribery of persons named in the Fifteenth Amend ment at all elections to a statute punish ing bribery of any nature at certain cleo tons would be in effective judicial legisla- tion.'
 Justice Brewer said that if the consti- nationality of the section in question could not be sustained. the indictment must fail. and referring to the statute. he said: ''On its face the section pur- ports to be an exercise of the power granted by the Fifteenth Amendment for 1t declares a punishment upon any one who by means of bribery prevents an- other to whom the right of suffrage Is guaranteed by such amendment from ex- ercising that right. But that amendment relates solely to action by the United States or by any State, and does not contemplate wrongful individual acts |"
 He quoted authorities to show that a statute which purports to punish purely individual action cannot be sustained as of an appropriate exercise of the powers conferred by the Fifteenth Amendment upon Congress to prevent action by the State through some one or more ot It's official representatives and that an in- dictment which charges no discrimina- tion :on account of race, color or previ- ous condition of servitude Is likewise des- titute of support by such amendment.
 Powers of Congress.
 Justice Brewer added that the court Is fully sensible of the great wrong which results from bribery at elections and said that 1t does not question the power of Congress to punish such offences when committed in respect to the election of Federal officials.
 At the same time 1t is all important that criminal statute should define clearly the offense when 1t purports such and that when so defined 1t should be within the limits of the power of the leg- islative body enacting it.
 Congress has no power to punish brib- cry at all elections. The limits of its power in respect to elections in which the nation is directly interested or In which some mandate of the National Constitu- tion is disobeyed and the courts are not at liberty to take criminal statutes out of the broad and comprehensive amendment and change 1t to fit some particular. trans action which Congress might havd legis- lated for if 1t had seen fit.