Year: 1876

The Supreme Court of the United States
has just rendered its decision in what are
known as the Grant Parish and Kentucky
election cases in which the constitutionalty
OF the enforcement act was involved. The
cases originated in the indictment of certain
parties in Louisiana and Kentucky for pre-
venting free exercise of the right of suffrage
They were tried in the circuit court before
Justice Bradley and the defendants put in
demurrer and alleged the unconstitutionality
of the law under which the prosecution was
brought. The demurrer was sustained and
the United States appealed. The two cases
are precisely alike though the Supreme Court
seems to have found the indictment in the
Grant Parish case bad because it was vague
and general in its terms and dismissed the
case on this ground In the Kentucky case,
however, the enforcement act cones directly
before the court. The court holds that the Fif
teenth amendment Goes not confer the right of
suffrage but simply provides that no person
shall be deprived Of such right by reason of
race, color or previous condition. In franz
ing an election law under this amendment
Congress had no right TO go beyond it, that
is, while it might properly make law
Furnishing inspectors of elections who deprived
electors of suffrage by reason of the latters col
or, race or previous condition it had no author
ity to enact penal statute Furnishing inspect
ors who might deprive an elector of such right
on some other ground. So far the court and
tha POnDcnl for ho apf Dat
the latter contended that there was no pro-
vision i'll the act which exceeded the scope
of the amendment. The third and fourth
sections taken alone the counsel admitted did
exceed the power conferred by that amend
ment, but it was claimed that they were to
be construed in connection with the other
sections of the act and when so construed
were in accord with the amendment. The
court held however that as the act is penal in
its nature it must be explicit in its terms
and nothing is to be left to construction if it
can be avoided In enacting the fourth Sec
ton, which has for its object the punishment
of all persons who by force, bribery etc.
hinder anyone from qualifying or voting,
Congress exceeded the powers delegated to it
under the amendment. The exact question
however which was presented to the court
was not whether Congress could pass law
to punish persons who hindered any elector
from qualifying but whether it had provided
by appropriate legislation for the punishment
OF persons who interfered with the right OF
suffrage by reason of the electors race, color
or previous condition. This the court held
Congress bad not dore. The enforcement
act could only be made such appropriate
legislation by restricting the third and fourth
sections and as this could not be done by
construction, it could only be accomplished by
inserting new words, and for the judiciary
to do this would be in the courts opinion a
usurpation of the legislative power. In effect
the court says that Congress having passed
an unauthorized act exceeding the powers
granted by the constitution it cannot call in
the court to limit it so as to covertit into an
act which was within its authority to pass.
In substance, if not in so many words the
court decides that the enforcement act is un-
constitutional