The Indianapolis journal., 1903-05-05
States Principle of COnveyancing IT,
tie of Swamp Lands Held by the
Supreme Court to Be Good.
CRIMINAL STATUTE INVALID
KENTUCKY CASE INVOLVING BRIB-
ERY AT FEDERAL ELECTIONS.
Power Of Congress Discussed by Jus-
tice Brewer, Who Announced
the Courts Decision.

WASHINGTON, May 4-The United
States Supreme Court to-day adjourned
until Monday, the 18th inst, when it will
meet to announce opinions, hear motions,
but not to listen to argument. Several i'm
portant decisions were rendered before ad-
journment. An opinion was delivered in
the case of Keen VS.. the Calumet Canal
Company, involving land under nonnavi-
gable waters in northern Indiana. The de-
cision was favorable to the company. The
land in question extends to the Illinois
State line, and the Calumet Company
claimed title under conveyances from the
State which derived the property from the
government through the swamp-land act.
The decision was along the same line that
was followed I'm the case of Hardin VS..
Jordan, dealing with the neighboring Illi-
nois lands, and the court held that the
States principle of conveyancing should con-
troll. Justices White and McKenna united
in a dissenting opinion attacking the prin-
ciple.
The Supreme Court in opinion by JUS
tice Brewer to-day delivered an opinion
in the case of United States Marshal James,
of Kentucky, VS.. Henry Bowman. involv-
ing the validity of Section 5507 Of the Re-
vised Statutes respecting the bribery of
persons protected by the fifteenth amend
ment. The opinion affirmed the decision
of the United States District Court for
the Western district of Kentucky, declaring
the statute unconstitutional. Bowman was
indicted for bribing negro voters in con-
nection with the congressional election in
the Fifth congressional district of Ken
lucky in 1900. Being arrested he sued out
| a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that
| the statute was in contravention of the
! federal Constitution. The District Court
| discharged Bowman and the government
brought the case to the Supreme Court,
| which affirmed the opinion. In announcing
! the opinion Justice Brewer said no point
| had been made of the fact that the persons
who were bribed were OF color Speaking
| clearly an attempt to exercise power sup
| posed to be conferred by the fifteenth
amendment in respect to all elections and
/ not in pursuance of the general control
I by Congress over particular elections To
! change this statute enacted to punish brib-
| ery of persons named in the fifteenth
| amendment at all elections to q statute
| Furnishing bribery of any nature at certain
elections would be in effect judicial legis-
lation.
tionality of the section in question could not
| be sustained the indictment must fail and
| referring to the statute, he said: ''On its
1
! of the power granted to Congress by the
| fifteenth amendment, for ii declares a pun
| ishment upon any one who, by means of
| bribery. prevents another to whom the right
| of suffrage is guaranteed by such amend
ment from exercising 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 in
| diyidual action cannot be sustained as an
! appropriate exercise of the power conferred
/ by the fifteenth amendment upon Congress
| to prevent action by the State through some
| one or more of its official representatives
| and that an indictment which charges no
/ discrimination on account of race color or
/ previous condition of servitude is likewise
| destitute of support by such amendment.
| Justice Brewer added that the court is fully
1 from bribery at elections. and said that IL
/ does not question the power of Congress ia
| punish such offenses when committed In
/ respect 10 the election of federal officials
| At the same time IL is all-important that a
! criminal statute should define clearly the
| offense which II purports TO punish. and
| that when defined IL should be-within the
| limits of the power of the legislative body
| enacting IL. Congress has no power TO MN.
| ish bribery at all elections. The limits of
| its power are in respect To elections In which
/ the Nation is directly interested. or In which
/ some mandate of the national Constitution
! Is disobeyed. and the courts are not at lib-
/ erty to take criminal statute broad s,s,d
| comprehensive In It's terms, and in these
terms beyond the power of Congress-. and