Year: 1876

q nervous young man, after trying the
door of the coat room and diving into
the coal closet, reached the counting
room door, looked over his shoulder al
two brawny Milesians who had just de.
scended from some upper region, missed
his footing for dozen stairs, accented
his decent with q heavy bump On the
first landing, and reached the street as
the editor wrote the last word of an ar
ticle on "the business outlook and
calmly sent il whirring up in the box to
the composition-room.- Boston Com
naerci0l Bulletin.


The Decision on the Enforcement Act.


The Grant parish case, from Louisi-
ana, ana the Kentucky election case,
have been decided by the Supreme court
of the United States. They involved
the most important questions considered
by that corrt since the legal-tender de-
cision. The Indictment in each case was
based upon the celebrated Enforcement
act of 1870, and the court was called
upon to construe the third, fourth and
sixth sections of that act.


The defendants in the Grant parish
case were indicted for alleged violations
of the sixth section. This prohibits two
or more persons from banding or con-
conspiring together "to injure, oppress,
threaten, or intimidate any citizen, with
intent to prevent or hinder his full exer-
else and enjoyment OF any right or priv
ilege granted or secured by the Consti-
tuition of the United States" The de-
PENDANTS were charged in the indictment
with conspiracy to do certain specified
acts, in violation of this provision.
Were the rights which they threatened
to interfere with granted or secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United
States? If they were not, the indict-
ment was fatally defective.


The Supreme court has decided that
they were not. To appreciate the scope
and importance of the decision, it is
necessary to understand what were the
rights under discussion. One was the
right of peaceable assembly for peace
full and lawful purpose. This, says
Chief Justice Waite, existed long before
the adoption of the Constitution of the
United States, and remains subject to
State jurisdiction. The States alone are
authorized to punish its infraction. 1t
was also alleged that the conspirators
intended to interfere with the right of
life and personal liberty, for they were
charged with conspiracy to falsely i'm
prison or murder certain citizens of the
United States residents in Louisiana.
These rights, say the Court, are the
natural rights of man, and the sover-
eighty for their protection rests alone
with the States. "Ihe only obligation
resting upon the United States is to see
that the States do not deny the right.


Again, it was averred that the defend
ants sought to restrain the right of GER
tain colored citizens of African decent to
vote at any election. The right of suf-
frage, however, as was decided by the
Supreme court two years ago, is not de-
rived from the Constitution of the United
States and as the indictment did not
charge that the intent was to exclude the
colored citizens from voting on account
of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude-so as to bring the case within
the terms of the fifteenth amendment
there was nothing to show a violation of
the Federal Constitution or laws.


From this it will be seen that although
the Supreme court does not in terms de-
clare the sixth section of the Enforce
ment act to be unconstitutional, it does
decide that the broad Interpretation and
application sought to be given to it in
the Federal courts below is in violation
of the rights of the States and the Con-
stitution of the United States.


In the Kentucky election case, the
question was whether the third and
fourth sections of the Enforcement act
were appropriate legislation, under the
Costitution, to enforce the fifteenth
amendment, which provides that the
right of citizens to vote shall not be de-
MED or abridged by the United States,
or by any State, on account OF race,
color, or previous condition of servitude.
It is the opinion of the court that the
United States has the right under this
amendment to punish unlawful individ-
ual determinations on account of race,
color, or servitude but the objection
to these sections OF the Enforcement
act is that they do not stop there. Ir-
respective of such discrimination, they
provide generally for the punishment of
interference with the right of suffrage,
and the power of Congress does not ex-
tend 30 far az this. 1t being impossible
to separate the unconstitutional parts OF
these sections from those which are con-
stitGtional, the whole must fail.


The result of both decisions is that
the operation of the sixth section of the
Enforcement act is 40 restricted as not 10
interfere with the police powers of the
States, and the third and fourth sections
are practically stricken from the statute
book. k.-NetO York Sun.


A Fool aDa His Gun.


James Rowland, Of Abbeyville county,
). O., young man about twenty years
=.