Year: 1872

WASHINGTON, March I9.-The Supreme
Court of the United States had before it for


argument to-day the case of the-United
States against Avery and others on the GER
tifcate of division from the Circuit Court
for the District Of South Carolina. The de-
PENDANTS in this case were indicted for con-
spiracy under the act of 31st of May, 1870,
to enforce therights of citizens Of the United
States, to vote in the several Stat es and for
other purposes, known as the Enforcement
or Ku-KluXJ act. The particular act
charged was the murder of one Jim
Williams while attempting 10 prevent
colored citizens from Veting and to hinder
and prevent their exercise of the right to
keep and bear arms. A motion having been
made 10 quash the Indictment, the court be-
low was divided in opinion on the questions
whether it had jurisdiction of the crime of
murder charged, and whether the right to
keep and bear arms is q right granted and
secured by the Constitution of the United
States so as to support the charge in the in
dictment and render the offence cognizable
by the court, and these questions were ceT-
titled TO this court.


The government submits that the ques-
tiOns having arisen on motion to quash,
this court, cannot take cognizance Of them,
the motion being preliminary in its
character aud determinable by the court
below as a matter of pure discretion. 1t is
contended thaS the act was intended merely
to visit with increased punishment offend
ers against the laws of the United States
who in violating these laws, shall also
commit ofienses against the laws Of the
nd t1,ia 81 has n, IL ,TrI II
naturally follows that The courts of the
United States have jurisdiction to inquire
into this additional fact.


For the defence it is urged, AFTER contTO-
verting the theory of the Government, that
the fifteenth amendment to the COnstitu-
ton contains no grant Of power over the
right of suffrage, but is in its nature a res
friction or abridgement Of such power in
one respect only, and that is in the power
to discriminate on account Of race, color,
and previous condition of servitude. 1t is
to enforce that section and prevent such
discrimination that, 10y the second section,
Congress is authorized TO enact appropriate
laws, and this article contemplates only
legislative action and does not expressly ap-
ply to individuals.


Before the act in question can take effect
then, it must appear that State has author
lied the discrimination prohibited by the
amendment; and such discrimination al
tempted TO be carried OJt by an individual,
if the State has not violated the article and
has passed no law TO authorize such dis
elimination, is an unauthorized act of an
individual or a combination of individuals,
which make no case for federal cogniZance.
An individual cannot deny or abTidge the
right TO vote III the sense of this amend
ment. 1t is a right that can only be given
or denied or abridged by law. South Car
Olina has not violated the amendment.
She has passed no act to discriminate on
account Of race or color or previous con-
ditiOu Of servitude, but admits as citizens
all colors, races or conditions who have the
qualifications Of voters to the full enjoy
ment Of the right Of suffrage.


But if it be held that it would be apprO-
pirate TO enforce this amendment against
individuals where the State has passed no
act, then it is contended that the cOnspira-
ces charged are not within the jurisdiction
Of United States Courts because they are
offences not within the purview Of the
amendment nor appropriate legislation to
enforce the amendments and are therefore
void.


1t is then submitted as too clear for argu-
ment that within the legitimate sphere Of
rights reserved to the States is included
exclusive legislation in the matter Of suf-
frage. The very existence Of the States
depends on it, and they have never sur
rendered their jurisdiction. When the
States by the amendment surrendered the
right to discriminate in the matter Of suf-
frage on the ground of color, race, etc, and
authorized Congress TO enforce that amend
ment, they surrendered no other right
touching suffrage, and gave Congress no
further power over the subject, and hence
the enforcement act is not appropriate
legislation.


Tha constitutional provision in respect to
the right of the people to bear arms, con-
tains nc grant Of power to the Federal Gov
ernment over the right to keep and bear
arms On the contrary, the established con-
truction is that it only recognizes pre-
existing right in the people of the States,
and is merely a restriction on the Federal
Government against any interference with
that right, and consequently subject mat
ter exclusively within the cOgnizance of the
States.


AS to the jurisdiction pretended to be
given by the act over another felony COM
mitted in attempt to do acts prohibited,
this case Of murder belongs exclusively to
the courts Of South Carolina, and that con-
sequently so much of the act is lnconstitu-
tional and void as an exercise Of legislative
power not in the constitution.


The case is argued on behalf of the Gov
ernment by the AttOrney-General and As
sistant Attorney-General Hill, and on be-
half the accused by Henry Stansbury and
Reverdy johnson. The argument thus far
is Oh the question Of Jurisdiction, the Gov
ernment moving to dismiss. Merits are Civ
en-. but it is not certain they will be az
gued.