Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

* ► 6. THE ATLANT A WEEKLY SUN THE DAILY SUN. Thuksday Mousin'! August 31. How a Case before tl»c Courts Testing the •Validity of the Fraudulent Amendments has been made, and how others very pro bably may be made. Wo give our readers to-day the argu ment of Hon. Linton Stephens in the case to which we referred, in Tuesday’s issue, in our reply to the New York World, and which did actually go before the Court?, involving the validity of the • “fraudulent amendments.” This argument we now present to our .readers, not only for the purpose of show ing how these frauds may bo tested be fore the Judicial tribunals of the country; but for the purpose also of showing be yond tho power of legal question, the utter invalidity of their claim to be re cognized as de jure or rightful parts of the Constitution; and how, if the law be administered, they will be treated as “nullities” in the peaceful “ manner and by the authority Constitutionally appointed,’ without any resort to violence or “Eevolu lion,” in any sense of the word. This case might have gone to the Su preme Court of the United States; but, as we before remarked, the prosecution thus commenced, was not sustained by i the evidenoc. The United States Commissioner, Swayze, before whom this argument was made, did, it is true, overrule the posi tions taken, and bound the party accused over to tho United States Circuit Court, in a bond of 85,000, to answer the charge. In that Court the Grand Jury ignored the Bill of Indictment preferred, and so that case there ended, without any decision upon tho merits of the grounds upon which the defense rested, touching the invalidity of the 15th. Amendment, so call- ftW-nLiii dtiMl »uT Neither time nor space allows us to : say more upon the subject at present. A. H. S. it is also unquestionably true, that they were elected and sustained by overwhel ming majorities of the true constitution al constituencies of the States for which they acted; they rested oa the consent of the*people, or constitutional constituen cies of the States, and were therefore truly “Legislatures of the States.” This Amendment was ratified by the Legis latures of the States in good faith, and in conformity with the almost unanimous wish of the constitutional “peoples.” How different is the case cf the 14th and 15th so-called amendments! If these are parts of the Constitution, I ask, how did they become so? Were they pro posed by Congress in a constitutional manner? In framing and proposing them every State in the Union was entitled, by the express terms of the Constitution, to be represented in speech and vote by “two Senators” and “at least one Representa tive.” But ten States of the Union were absent. This time their absence was not voluntary, but compelled. When they were claiming a hearing through their constitutional representatives they were stitaency intact. On the other theory, being valid, it modified but did ‘^not im pair the integrity of the State organiza tion. All this follows from, or rather is himself a legal and valid autocrat, by simply “proclaiming” that an amend ment to the Constitution to that effect has been proposed by two-thirds of each House of Congress, and ratified by the THE INVALIDITY OF THE “FRAUDULENT AMEND MENTS^’ <SpcecU of Hou. Linton Stephens, jDcIItciciI in liis own Defense Before TT.S. Commissioner Swnyzc, n.t-3Iaeo«, ■Ga., January 23, 1871 comprehended^!!, the one Potion | fSidotaie5oftllMe . tourt l 1 ,6fa.eS 1 nt« ; that these ten States have never lost tlieir character as Slates. although it may be known of all men Each of these ten States being a State | that there is not one word of truth in the at the close of the war in 1865, stands j proclamation. The President of the now' dejure just as it stood then; unless it lias since that time been changed by the action of its constitutional constitu ency. I think each of them was so changed in the Litter part of that same year. In each of them a Convention was elected by a large and unquestionable majority of the constitutional constituen cy (although a portion of them were ex cluded from voting) foi the purpose of modifying the Constitution. These Con ventions repealed the ordinance of seces sion, abolished slavery, and made some other changes in the several Constitu tions, but (in m'ost of the States) left the constitutional constituencies just as they stood before. In conformity with the Constitutions, as last modified by those Conventions, each of the States was driven away, and denied all participation I speedily provided with a complete gov- in framing and proposing these so-called eminent, consisting of a legislative, ex- amendments! Was this a constitutional ecutive, and judicial department. It was mode of proposal? I say it was an un- by the Legislatures thus formed that tne constitutional mode, and that the pro- J 13th^Amendment to the Constitution of posal was ah initio, null dnd void. But how stands the ratification of these so-called amendments? To say nothing about the duress of bayonets and Con gressional dictation, under which the ratification was forced through the rati fying bodies in the ten Southern States, the great question is, who were these ratifying bodies? Were they Legisla tures of the States? They were not.— They were the creatures of notorious and avowed Congressional usurpation. They were elected not by the constitutional constituencies of the States, but by con stituencies created by Congress, not only outside of the Constitution, but in pal pable violation of one of its express pro- tbe United States, abolishing slavery, was ratified. Since that time no change has been made in the organization of any of these States, with the co-operation or concur rence of the constitutional constituen cies. Only very small minorities of the constitutional constituencies have co-op erated in the work of reconstruction. It is a notorious -and unquestionable fact, that an overwhelming majority of them in each of the States have been steadily and unswervingly opposed to it, aud have voted against it, whenever they vo ted at all. The clear result, in my judgment, is that each of these States now stands de visions. The suffrage or political power pare just as she was left by the action — ’ ’ * ’ * *’ ^ 0 f her Convention in 1865, with a com plete government, formed under the Constitution of that year,, including a Legislature which still constitutionally exists, and is capable of assembling any day, if it were only allowed to do so by the withdrawal of the bayonet. Bat she stands de facto suppressed, by a govern ment originated and imposed on her by an external power, and supported alone by tbe bayonet. Sucb a government is the embodiment of anti-republicanism and despotism. Under just such a gov ernment Ireland is writhing and Poland is crashed. Is it not now demonstrated that the bodies wliicb ratified the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments^ in the name of these ten States, were the revolutionary of the States is not delegated to the Gen eral Government by the Constitution; but, on the contrary, its reservation by the States is rendered exceedingly eni pliatic by that provision of the Consti tution which, instead of creating a con stituency to elect its own officers—Presi dent, Vice President and members of Congress—adopts the constituencies of the States, as regulated by the States themselves, for the election of the most numerous branch of their own Legisla tures. Ten of the ratifications, which were falsely counted in favor of these mis called amendments as ratifications by Legislatures of States, were only ratifi cations by bodies which had their origin in Congressional usurpations, were elect ed by illegal constituencies unknown to products of external force and fraud, dis- the Constitution of tbe United States or I placing the true Legislatures which alone the Constitutions of the States, and were could have given a constitutional ratifi- organized aud manipulated under the control of military commanders who claimed aud exercised the jurisdiction of passing upon the election and qualifica tion of their members. Can these joint products of usurpation, fraud and force be palmed off as Legislatures of States? cation ? These so-called Amendments, then have been neither constitutionally pro posed nor constitutionally ratified.— How can they form parts of tho Consti tution ? A successful answer to this question Can ratifications by them be accepted, as would long ago have brought that peace ratifications by Legislatures of States?— and harmony which can never come from Man it please the Court: I know full well that if your Honor is not superior <to the average of poor human nature you will find It difficult, if not impossible! do give my defense in this case an im partial consideration, and an honest .decision. Tho prosecution against me is founded on the course which I took in the recent political election, which re sulted in a victory for my party, and a defeat for yours. It is also directly in the line of an assault which was lately made against me in tbe newspapers, by : the official bead party in the State. I, therefore, recognize in this case & political prosecution, ju*t as distinctly as I recognize in my judge a most zealous and determined political opponent. Yet, sir, there are other considerations whiclieucou rage mo to hope that I may obtain, even from you, that decision which is deman ded by. justice and by tbe laws. From the personal knowledge of you, which I have acquired since the beginning of this trial, I have discovered that you are a man of decided intelligence ; and I am told that you are a man of courage. I am also told that you, yourself, have been, in Borne instances,a victim of politi cal persecution, and object of unjust oblo quy. Surely, such arnan, with such an ex perience ought to give a fair bearing to one whose only fault is not any wroDg which he has committed against tne laws, but tbe damage which he has inflicted upon a political party. My greatest encourage ment, however, is derived from my con fidence in the lawfulness of my conduct, aud the power of truth. To troth, bravely upheld, belongs a triumph which cannot be defeated, nor long delayed, not even by the intensest prejudices of partisan strife. I am strengthened, too, in the advocacy of truth on this occasion by the consciousness that, in defending myself, I shall be but defending princi- pics which are dear to every American, 1 zation- of Can falsehood thus be converted into might overbearing light. Instead truth by tbe thimble-rigging of Presi- giving such an answer, tbe authors of dential proclamations? These bodies these measures have sought to drown rea- were, indeed, setup by their usurping son and argument in clamorous charges creators, as Legislatures for aud ovei• of violence and revolution against the States; but until the known troth of re- victims, not the perpetrators, of those cent history can be blotted out by the mere power of shameless assertion, they cannot be recognized as Legislatures of States. The Parliament of Great Britain is a Legislature for and over poor down trodden Ireland; but what Irishman will ever recognize it as the Legislature of Ireland? The false, Spurious and revolutionary crimes. But an answer has at last been attemp ted from an unexpected quarter. Strange ly enough, it comes from one who has greatly distinguished himself by the vig or and ability with which he has de nounced the whole scheme of reconstruc tion as a revolutionary usurpation and nullity. And, still more strangely, he character of these ratifying bodies is ren- adheres to that denunciation, while now dered still more glaring by the fact, that supported by tbe bayonet, they subverted or rather repressed the true, legitimate Legislatures of all the States where re construction was applied. That such arguing that these so-called amendments, the creatures and culminating points of that reconstruction scheme, are valid parts of the Constitution. Such a con clusion from such a beginning! And Legislatures existed in these States, aud yet he is hailed by liis new allies as a very are indeed still existing, is demonstrable Daniel come unto judgment. They were from the facts viewed in the light of either in a sore strait for an argument. of the two theories of secession—that of its validity or invalidity. On either theory the seceding States remained States. On the one theory they were States out of the Union; on the other they have remained all the while States in the Union. The Supreme Court of He says these so-called amendments have become parts of the Constitution, because they have been proclaimed as such by the power which, under the Con stitution, has the “jurisdiction” to pro claim amendments. There has been much said, sir, about the United States, in the recent case of issues that are “dead;” surely here is one White vs. Texas, speaking through Mr. that is not only alive bat very lively. Let Chief Justice Chase, held that secession Americans hear and mark it! The Con- was invalid, and that the States which J stitution of the United States can be bad attempted it remained and still are j changed, can be subverted by Presiden- States in the Union. I tial proclamation !! I once knew a man A State is not a disorganized mass of whose motto was that a lie, well told, was people. It is an organized political body. It must have a Constitution of some sort, written or traditional Being an organ ized body, it must have a law. of organi zation or composition or Constitution, better than the truth, because, he said, truth was a stubborn, unmanageable thing, but a lie in the hands of a genius could bo fitted exactly to the exigencies of the case. But even he admitted that defining the depositary of its political the lie must be well told, or it would not power. Where there is no such constitu- serve. If it should appear to he a lie it tional or constituting or organizing or would be turned from a thing of power fundamental law, there can he no organi- into a thing for contempt. There has " -no State. These ten States then, been progress, sir, since that man taugbt. mwm. '■'J ixiuciiuitu, ; zation—no Mate, xnese ten estates men, ueen progress, sir, since tuatmantaugnt. because they he at the foundation of the i which seceded or attempted to secede (as It is now discovered that a known, proven whole fabric of American constitutional | liberty. Nor, sir, unless I am mnek mistaken in the estimate which I have formed of your character, will you listen to my defense any the less favorably because of the fraukuess and boldness with which I shall present it. I am accused under the Enforcement Act of Congress. My first position is, that this whole act is not a law, hut a mere legal nullity. It was passed with the professed * ob ject of carryiug into effect what are called the 14th aud 15th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and depends on their validity for its own. These so-called Amendments are, as I shall now proceed to show, not true Amendments of the Constitution, and do not form any part of that sacred instru ment. They are nothing but usurpations and nullities, having no validity them selves, and therefore incapable of im parting any to the Enforcement Act or to any other act whatsoever. I take occasion to say, that I regard the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, as clearly distinguishable from the 14th and 15th so-called Amendments, in the manner both of its proposal and of its ratification. The contrast between it and them will contribute to make their in validity all the more apparent It is true, that when the 13th Amendment was proposed, ten States of the Union were absent from Congress ; but their absence was voluntary, and therefore did not affect the validity of the proposal. It is true, also, that the Legislatures which ratified it for these ten States had their initiation in a palpable usurpa tion of power on the p»rt of the President of the United States; yet the one theory or the other may be held), have all the while had Constitutions. In point of fact, each of these has ever been a written Constitution, giving tbe ballot to defined classes of citizens who are known as the constitutional constituency lie is as good as the truth, provided it can only get “proclaimed” by a power having “jurisdiction” to proclaim it!! I, sir, know of no power—either on the earth, cr above it, or under it—that has ‘jurisdiction” to “proclaim” t.trs ! J— of the State. This constitutional consti- Nay, sir, I know of no power which has tuency is entrusted by each of these Con stitutions with power over the Constitu tion itself, in modifying or changing it, and of course in modifying or changing the organizations or compositions of the constitutional constituency. This is the depositary of the highest political power of the State. Any chapge made in the Constitution or organization of the State, jurisdiction to proclaim amendments to the Constitution. According to my read ing of that instrument, amendments constitutionally proposed “shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourth of the seve ral States, or by Conventions in three- fourths thereof, as the one or the other or in the composition of the constitution- mode of ratification may he proposed by al constituency, as it may exist at any the Congress.” The ratification by three time, without the concurrent action of the fourths of the States, acting through constitutional constituency itself, is rero- their Legislatures or their Conventions, tution. It is disorganization. It is the 1 “ ’ subversion or suppression (as it may prove permanent or temporary) of one organi zation and the substitution of another. It is the abolition (permanent or tempo rary) of the old State, and the introduc tion of a new one. sets the seal of validity on the amend ment and makes it a part of the Consti tution. Nothing else can do it. It must be a true ratification by a true Legisla ture, or a true Convention of the State. A false ratification by a true Legislature of the State will not do. A true ratifica- Each of these ten States, in 1865, at tion by a spurious Legislature will not the close of the war, being then a State, j do. The validity of the amendment and had a Constitution and a constitutional its authority as a part of the Constitu- constituency linked back by unbroken tion, are made to depend upon the histor- succession to the Constitution and con- ic truth of its ratification as required stitutioual constituency as they existed j by the Constitution. Proclamations of before secession. Secession made no falsehoods from Presidents, or from ,. _ , , — Constitution itself. The tbe Confederate States instead of with 1 validity of the Constitution in all its tue United States as its Federal head, is | parts depends upon the facts of their wholly immaterial to the present purpose, j history. On the oue theory it was simply void, j But, according to :uiu left the organization of the State, the j the President of the ^ Constitution, and the constitutional con- subvert the whole Constitution United States can legally convert him self into an autocrat by his own procla mation. Theories are quickly put into practice in these days. Let the country beware!! We are also told by this new Daniel, not only that the usurpation has become obligatory by its success, but there is no hope of getting rid of it; for he says it cannot be changed without another amendment, ratified by three-fourths of the States, and that there is no prospect of getting these three-fourths. Wonder ful! Why, he himself has taught us that the whole thing may be accomplished by a Presidential proclamation. We have only to elect a Democratic Presi dent, and let him “proclaim” that a new amendment, abolishing the 14th and 15th, has been duly proposed and duly ratified; and the thing is done. That, sir, would be tbe way taugbt by this new light; but it would never be my way. I do not propose to walk in the ways of falsehood. I prefer truth; because it is nobler, grander. I believe also that, when it is supported by true and bold men, it is always more powerful. My way would be to elect a Democratic President; and let him treat the usurpa tion as a usurpation and a nullity, and let him withdraw the bayonet, and “pro claim” that the revolutionary govern ments in these ten States would not be supported by him, but that tbe constitu tional Republican governments which now exist here would be left free to rise from their state of forcible repression, and do their natural and legitimate work of true restoration, real peace, sincere and cordial fraternity. Tbe whole prob lem is solved by the simple withdrawal of the bayonet. -' I have now shown that the 14th and 15th Amendments do not form any part of the Constitution; and thus have made good my first position, that the whole Enforcement Act, which depends solely upon them for its validity, is not a law, but a more legal nullity. ' My second position is that, eyen if the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments were valid, yet all those parts of the En forcement Act claimed as applicable to my case are utterly “outside” of them, aud (being confessedly outside of the Constitution, apart from them} are un constitutional, aud not binding ns laic. The 14th Amendment, and the small part of tkeEntorcement Act relating to it, have no relevancy to this prosecution, aud I shall say nothing further about dtaiffid# Jdoq tx t'i j» ga Those parts of the Act claimed as ap plicable to my case rests solely upon the 15th for their validity; and in order to see whether they are outside of it or not, it becomes necessary to know wbat are the terms and extent of that amend ment.- v • The effect of its terms is strangely misapprehended. It seems to be regard ed as a thing which, by its terms, secures the right of suffrage to the negro, and empowers Congress to enforce that right. This is a total and most danger ous mistake. Here is the amendment-. It- is not longer than the ftist joint of my little finger: “Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of ser vitude. “Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appro priate legislation.” This is the whole cf it. Now, sir, defy refutation, when I affirm that, by these terms, the right of suffrage is not conferred upon nor secured to any jier- son or class of persons whomsoever. The whole is simply a prohibition on the United States and the several States. Tbe United States, in legislat ing for the District of Columbia or a Ter ritory, and the several States in regulat ing their suffrage, each for herself, are prohibited from denying it to anybody or abridging its exercise on either one of the three grounds—race, color, or previ ous condition of servitude—but are left perfectly free to abridge it or deny it on any other ground whatsoever—sex, female or male, ignorance or intelligence, pov erty or wealth, crime or virtue, or any other of an innumerable multitude of other grounds. In point of fact, the right is denied both by the United States and by each one of tbe several States, on many of these other grounds; and the denial is enforced under heavy penalties, not only by the laws of the States, but by this very Enforcement Act itself. To say that the right is conferred on or seenred to anybody, because it cannot be denied for ony one or all of three reasons out of an indefinite number of possible and usual reasons, is simply absurd. As well say that a plat of ground is fenced or secured from intrusion by putting a wall on one of its many sides, leaving all the other sides perfectly open. A right is not con ferred or secured by a law, when it can be denied without a violation of that law. This brings me to the crucial test of my second position. Whether. I have violated any provisions of the Enforce ment Act or not, it is at least certain that I have not violated the 15th Amendment, It is affirmatively proven, by the testi mony of the two prosecutors in this case— the two negro managers of election—that I did not object to or in 'any manner in terfere with any vote on the ground of either race, color or previous condition of servitude. It is manifest, then, that if ] have violated any part or parts of the Ea forcement Act, such part or parts are “outside” of the Amendment and unau thorized by it; since I have not violated the Amendment itself. I have not violated theAmendment, even if its prohibition . reached private citizens, instead of being confined, as it plainly is, to the United States and the States severally. Ike truth is, that far the gi’eater part of the Enforcement Act is “outside” of the Amendments which it professes to enforce. This act presents another live and very lively issue to the people of this country; and already are the thunders of opposition heard from Republican as well as from Democratic quarters. Under the pretense of restraining the United States and the several States from denying or abridging the right of suffrage on account of race, color or previous. condition of servitude, this act takes control of the general and local elections in all Dip ties levelled, not against the United States or the several States, or their officers by whom alone the 15th Amend ment can possibly be violated, but against private citizens. The Alien and Sedition Acts, which by the power of their recoil, exterminated their authors, were not equal to this act either in the nakedness or the danger of their usurpation. If this act shall prevail and abide as law, then our heritage of local self-government, lost to us, will pass into history, and there standout forever a glory to the noble sires who wrung it from one tyranny, and a shame to the degenerate sons who sur rendered it to another. My third and last position is, that, even* if the Enforcement Act we e valid in all its parts, yet I have not violated any one of them. I am accused under its 5tli and 19th sections. The 5th provides a penalty against “preventing, hindering, controlling or intimidating, or attempting to prevent, hinder, control or intimidate” any person from votiug “to whom the right of suf frage is secured or guaranteed by the 15th Amentment. ” I have already demon strated that the 15th Amendment secures or guarantees the right of suffrage to no body whomsoever. It is impossible, therefore, that I am, or that anybody ever can be, guilty under that section. But again; the testimony utterly fails to show that I interferred in any way with the voting of any person legally entitled to vote, or indeed, with the voting of any person whomsoever. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to show what person, if any; and that they were persons entitled to vote. The Enforcement Act itself inflicts a penalty on all persons who vote illegally; and, of course, cannot intend to punish the pre vention or hindrance of illegal voting.— The attempted proof, as to my interfer ence with voters, relates to four persons only. It fails to show that either one of the four was a person entitled to vote. It fails to show that three of them did not actually vote. It fails to show that any one of them offered to vote, or even de sired to do so. It fails to show that any one of them heard me make a single re mark, saw me do a single act, or was even in my presence from the beginning to tbe end of the three days’ election. As to the remark which I made to a small crowd, about prosecuting all who should vote without having paid their taxes, I have this to say: In the first place, it is not shown who composed that crowd, nor that a single one of them was a person entitled to vote. In the next place, the remark was a lawful one; for it was simply the declaration of an inten tion, not to interfere with legal voters, but to prosecute criminals; and therefore cannot bo tortured into a threat, in any legal or criminal sense of that word, i threat, to be criminal, must be the deela ration of an intention to do some unlaw ful act; and it never canJoe unlawful to appeal to the laws. I pass to the charge, under the 19th section, that I interfered with the mana gers of election in the discharge of their duties, by causing their arrest under ju dicial warrant. That part of the 19 th sec tion which is invoked against me is in these words: “Or interfere in any man ner with any officer of said elections in tLe discharge of his duties.” My first answer to this charge is, that the managers were arrested, not in the discharge of their duties, but in the vio lation of one of the most important of them—one prescribed not only by tbe Constitution of the State, but by this very Enforcement act itself; for tbe act made it their duty to reject all illegal votes, and provided a penalty for receiv ing them. These managers had received and were still receiving the votes of per sons who had not paid their taxes of the year next preceding the election, as re quired by the Constitution of this State. The testimony shows that this fact was fully proven and not denied by them, on the commitment trial before the magis trate. The reply to it then was, and now is, not a denial, but a justification, on two grounds. One of these grounds was, that the oath which they had taken, uuder the Akermau Election act, required them to let every person vote, who was of apparent full age, wab a resident of the county, and had not previously voted in that election. They said thenand it is -now said again here, that they could not inquire iuto the non-payment of taxes or any other Constitutional disqualifica tion for voting, except only non-age, non residence and previous voting in that election: And yet, a man who was of full age, and a resident of the county, and who had not previously voted, was exclu ded by these same managers, on the ground that he was a convicted felon.— Their own action in excluding the felon is utterly inconsistent with their construc tion of the obligation of their oath. The oath, as construed by them, and now construed here by the prosecuting attor ney, is in plain conflict with tbe Consti tution, and is, therefore, void, and could not relieve them from their Constitution al duty to exclude all who had not paid their taxes. The first ground of the man agers’ justification therefore fails. Their other ground was, that the unpaid tax of those -whom they had allowed to vote without payment of taxes, was only poll tax, and that the poll tax had been declared by an act of the Legislature to be illegal and unwarranted by the Con stitution, and its further collection sus pended. The fact that it was only poll tax does not appear from the evidence be fore your Honor, but I admit it to be true. I did not come here to quibble.— I am here to justify my conduct under the law, on the truth as it exists, whether proven here or not. My answer is, that this declaratory act of the Legislature is false, unconstitutional, null and void. The act is but the opionion of the Legislature, concerning the constitu tionality of a previous act of 1869, im posing the poll tax for that year. That act is before me, imposing a poll tax of one dollar per head “for educational pur poses” using the very words which are used by the Constitution itself in defin ing the purpose for which poll taxes may be imposed. Now, sir, the question which I ask is, what is it that makes this act “illegal” or unwarranted by the Con stitution? Surely, it is not made so by tbe subsequent declaration of the Legis lature, put forth just before the election, to serve a palpable, fraudulent, party purpose. The Legislature is not a Court; but on the contrary it is expressly prohibited by the Constitution from exercising judicial functions, and its declarations concerning the constitutionality of Legislative acts, have no more authority than those is that reason ? It is that the Consti- tion limits the imposition of poll pf a ' to educational purposes; and that Jif 68 the poll tax in question was iniir' there was no system of common scW/ or educational purposes to u-lnV.i - could de applied. Therefore thev^ its imposition was.“illegal and ranted by tbe Constitution.” Tliev it was unwarranted by the Constitutin'; to provide the money before “ - n ing the schools, to which the S 2 ' was to be applied; that is to sav^S only Constitutional «•<>«. - •>’ l ue .to organic to debt f CI way the schools, was to go them ! I lack words, sir,"to characterize the silliness of this 1 re**? But, curious enough, the ConstihVtp/ itself took the very course, v;S fw sapiant legislators declared to be-fitS and unwarranted by the Constitution T provided money and devoted it to the« very Common Schools, which we» in the womb of the future at the Pmerf its adoption. It dedicated to that pose the whole educational fund wl-il' was then on hand. Therefore I *1 this declaratory act is not only false hll is ^ the.very teeth of the Constitution itself. Mark you, sir, it did not renad nor attempt to repeal the poll tax- it only■ suspended its collection. But T say, if it had been a repeal in terms, in stead of a mere suspension, it could not change tho case, as to the right of a person to vote without having paid the tax. The Constitutional requirement i* that “he shall have paid all taxes, which may have been required of him, and which he may have had an opportunity of paying agreeably to law for the year next preceding the election.” The poll tax was required in April, 1869, and continued to be required, up to the pas sage of the aforesaid false declaratory act-, in October, 1870—a year and a-half. During all that period tax-payers had “opportunity” to pay it. On the clay of the election, then, any man who had not paid his poll tax for 1869, stood in the position of not having paid a tax, wkieli had been required of him, and which he had had very many opportunities of pay ing agreeably to law. He stood clearly within the letter of the Constitutional dis qualification for voting. He stood also within its reason aud spirit, for its true intention was to discriminate against the citizen who should not have discharged a public duty for the year next preced ing the election. Nothing but payment could remove from him the character of a public delinquent. Legislative remis sion of the tax cannot serve the purpose, for he still stands after that as a map who has failed in a public duty. The most that can be said for him is, that after the repeal, the tax ceased to be required of him; but the only material facts—that it hail been required, and could have been paid, but had not been paid—remain un altered. The managers, tlieii, iu receiving the votes of persons who had not paid their poll tax, were not in “the discharge of their duties.” Whether they thought so. is not the question. If they were really wrong, then I was right, and surely, lam not to be punished for being right. There was no interference with them in the dis charge of their duties. But again: even if I were wrong in the opinion which I entertained of their duty, yet I did not interfere with them unlawfully. The whole context of that clause, in the 19th section, under which I am accused, shows that the interference contemplated is an unlauful interference; especially the words which come im mediately after it—“or by any of such means or other unlawful means,” etc.— This word “other” shows conclusively that all the means contemplated were only such as were of an unlawful charac ter. This would be implied in constru ing any penal statute, even if it were not expressed; for the universal rule of con struction for penal statutes is to construe strictly against the prosecution, and lib erally in favor of the accused. Is it pos sible that any judge can have the hardi hood to hold that it was the intention of this Enforcement Act to impart to man agers of election the sacred character of Eastern Brahmins, making them too holy to be touched even for their crimes? Surely it was not intended to give them greater sanctity than belongs to Peers of the British Pariamant-, or to legislators in our own country while engaged in leg islation. Notwithstanding all the high privileges accorded to them, all of these are subject to arrest in any place, at any moment, under a warrant charging breach, of the peace or felony. Was it intended to protect these managers from immedi ate accountability for all felonies which they might commit during three whole days? Until this shall be held as the in tention of the Enforcement Act, it is im possible to maintain that I have violated it in any particular whatever. The Constitution declares that “the right of the citizen to appeal to the courts shall neve^ be impaired.” My whole offense, sir, is this: that I appealed to a court of competent jurisdiction. I de voutly believed 1 was right in my opinion of the law. I believe so now. But, whether I was right or wrong in my opin ion, who will dare to say that I was wrong in testing that opinion, not by the strong hand, but by appealing to a court ap pointed by the Constitution for the very purpose of deciding the question ? That court decided that I was right; and the “interference” which followed, sir, was the interference, not of myself, hut of the law, as expounded and administered by a j udicial tribunal. Moreover, sir, the decision of that tribunal stands as the law of the case, until it shall be reversed according to law. These managers were charged with felony under the laws of this State. Was it a crime forme to seek a judicial inquiry into the truth or prob ability of such a charge? I suspect, sir, that my real crime, iu the estimation o£ my prosecutors, is, that the judicial in terposition invoked by me had the effect of preventing numerous repetitions of a crime which would have done signal ser vice to their political party. If angry power demands a sacrifice from those who have thwarted its fraud ulent purposes, I feel honored, sir, in being selected as the victim. If my sut feriDg could arouse my conntrymen to a just and lofty indignation against ta*- despotism which, in attacking me, is bu assailing law, order, and constitution government, I would not shrink from 1 sacrifice, though my blood should he i‘ qnired instead of my liberty. LonsvmLK, August 30.—The, floor of Whitney, Brown & Co. s g warehouse fell to-day, killing two 1 and one white man. The builduio ^ crushed to the cellar. l’wo P rou * u . ^ Main street merchants were throw i the streets by the concussion.