The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-06-02
The Government and Its Citizens

'Ihe Government and Its Citizens.
our recent observations on the deci-
son of Judge Jones, of Alabama in the
lynching case has given the Charlottes-
vile Progress "a genuine surprise" The
Progress says that We first pointed out
that tho ruling Of judge Jores was n
usurpaton OF the State courts, but after
wards confessed, after reading the dcLls
sion, that il, this we were mistaken. Not
so. We retractedrnoth We simply
recalled an expression which we had
not intended ftos use. We insisted from
the first, and still insist, that n citizen
of the United States has rights which
the Urited States government is bound
to protect.
There is no occasion for any surprise
anywhere or about anything connected
with the subject, except the failure of the
Progress to catch the true point Of the
matter. The Progress thinks that be-
cause the Fourteenth Amendment at
thorizes Congress TO enact Legislation
that will protect an American citizen
against tyrannical action by his State,
that therefore Judge Jones had no power
to act in this, Ease because the action
complained of. was not action by the
State of Alabama, but action by set
OF conspirators. !, mayllng upon their own
Initiative.
But the Progress must look deeper into
these matters when it undertakes to dis
cuss them There is wide field OF legis-
lation open to Congress for the protcc-
lion of the rights of American citizens
that does not depend upon the Thirteenth
Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments
~ For instance. 1t is the right of every
American citizen to petition Congress, to
travel from bre end of this Union to
another to be protected upon the high
seas and the Congress of tho United
States can legislate to protect American
citizens In the possession and enjoyment
of these rights, although no State inter.
feres with them in any way whatever
Section b50S OF the Revised Statutes of tho
United States provides for the prosecution
in the United States courts of any per-
CONS who conspire together to deprive
Il citizen of the United States of any
right or privilege secured to him by the
Constitution or laws of the United States.
and the Supreme Court has held this to
be n valid exercise of congressional
power. For instance, in the case Of
United States VS.. Waddell. 112 U. S. Re-
ports 76, where several men were in.
dicted under this act for conspirlng to-
gether to run citizen of the United
States off OF land which he had entered
upon TO make a homestead Of under the
acts Of Congress- in that case made and
provided, the Supreme Court upheld a
conviction of the conspirators in the
United States courts, because they were
undertaking to deprive man of a Fed
eral right. II the Progress will read
the case of I1&-parte Marlborough, ITO
u, S, r., it VIII see the reasoning by
which this conclusion is reached stated
with convincing clcarness and power. 1t
will see the same line and argument
stated in Ex-parte Neaele, 1876 u. S, r.,
], and Ex-parte Quarles l5s u. S. r. 632.
Indeed the proposition is now TO be con.
s!dered horn-book law.
The whole question. therefore, In Judge
Jones's case is whether the right 10 have
fair and impartial trial in state
court upon any charge Of crime under
State law, free from Interference by
conspirators who propose to deprive the
accused Of his right TO that trial. is q
Federal right. The question is exactly
what we stated II 10 be. II the cont
holds that The right is Federal right.
Judge Jones viii be sustained. If Il
holds That it IS only one OF the ordlnar,
rights Of citizen. he will be reversed,