Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

gftronttle a rib Smtintl 1 WEDNESDAY APBILS, 1^76. Hon. Montoomrby Blair has tor Tildbn. Poor Tildbn. ,r Thi mantle of prophecy fame fallen upon the editor of the Port Valley Mir ror. He aaya: “Governor Smith ood tinnea to gain strength in Middle and Southwest Georgia, and he ia just as sure to be the next Governor as he runs. Mark our prediction.” The editor of the Geneva Lamp ia a good judge of a good journal. Hear him : “There ia a freshness about the Augusta Chronicle and Sbbtinkl not possessed by any other daily that cornea to this office. It ia edited with great care and ability. The weekly ia one of the beet, if not the beet, in the State." “Bohemian” telegraphs that his charge against Mr. Gbadt ia not sus tained by parties in Atlanta who started it. Mr, Gbadt publishes a card deny ing the charge of plagiarism. The “Street Arabs” appeared originally in the editorial columns of the Herald. and was afterwards rewritten for the Constitutionalist—* paper published in this city; Messrs. Puohb and Randall should turn their attention to the McDuffie Journal. That sterling paper is about to “bolt” the Democratic nomination. It actually copies the editorial which stirred the Democratic bowels of P. and 8., and characterizes our remarks as truthful and sensible. Bead the Journal out of the party, P. and B. The McDuffie Journal heartily en dorses the suggestion of the Chbonicle and Sentinel that the Convention for the Eighth District should be held out side of Augusta, and hopes that Thom son may be selected as the plaoe of meeting. We should be perfectly satis fied with suoh a selection. Augusta has no right to the Convention, and it should beheld in Thomson, Sparta, Warren ton, Crawfordville or Greenesboro. The estate of the late General Francis P. Blaib is valued at only five hundred dollars. The St. Louis Republican seems to think this fact shows that Gen eral Blaib was exceptionably honest. He may have been, but according to General Shebman’s testimony General Blaib did not hesitate to help himself to Charleston carpets and Madiera wine atOheraw in 1865. All men who die poor are not honest. Poverty is the re sult of extravagance as well as of sorupu lousness. The Georgia Congressmen are in favor of hard money and opposed to Senator Sherman’s resumption sham. On a motion to suspend the rales and take up Mr. Payne’s bill six of the nine Con gressmen from Georgia—Messrs. Blount, Cook, Felton, Habbis, Habtbidge and Smith —voted in the affirmative. Mr. Stephens was at home ill; Mr. Candler was at home practicing law; and Mr. Hill was in Washington but did not vote. We are confident, however, that Mr. Hill, if present, would have voted with his colleagues, as it is well under stood that he is in favor of hard money. Op course things are coming to an end now. We leaßn from undoubted authority that Gabriel purchased (on time and a lien) his trumpet yesterday. The Borne Courier says Hon. Congress man-from-the-Fifth-District-of-Georgia- Candlxb is not the man to investigate frauds in the Department of Justioe. The Courier, in a burst of frankness, says: “After investigating Kimball, and pronouncing him a thief, he en dorsed him to the Government as a man eminently fitted to be trusted. Mr. Candler is a Democrat, it is true, and vo mo grieved to opowk iKuo ol ©mo nf our party, but it is beet always to call things by their right names.’ 1 POLITICAL REPENTANCE. “Maryland, my Maryland” does not take much stock in political repentance. We quote : What has Boscoe Conkling done that Groses William Curtin should oenaure him ? They have hewn wood and carried water for Grant ever since he came into the Presidency. —Rets York Herald. A good point. No man has done more than Groans Wm. Curtis, as editor of Harper's Weekly, to fasten “Ghantibm” on this country. And now he plays a sanctimonious part, and wants to unload the burden he has helped saddle the “nation” withal. We go in for getting rid ef Grantism and Gurtisism at one fell swoop.— Constitutionalist. Georoe William Curtis onoe sup ported Grant. Georoe William Cur tis is now opposed to Grant. Bat the Constitutionalist is not willing to ac cept political repentance. This may be a just, but it is certainly a severe rule, and it is a rule that may operate against those who enforoe it so strongly. Have a care, Colonel. THE DEMOCRACY OF TUB CONSTITU TIONALIST. The Constitutionalist is unnecessarily troubled by an undetected typographi cal error which caused a word written “ meant ” to appear in type as “ want” The Constitutionalist is solioitons that the Chronicle and Sentinel should not be “misrepresented or misunderstood abroad or at home.” Of conrse we oan not question either the magnanimity or the sincerity of our neighbor, but we beg leave to decline its kind offices. We feel abundantly able to take oare of the Chbonicle and Sentinel and to correct all misrepresentations and misunder standings conoerning its position. The Chronicle and Sentinel has never hesi tated, and will never hesitate, to express its opinions at the proper time upon all public questions. The Constitutionalist need not be afraid that we will refuse to support any good Demoorat who may be presented upon a sound platform by the St. Louis Convention. Any statements j or insinuations to the contrary are aim- j ply lacking, to put it with great mild- j ness, in the essential of truth. In oon- i elusion, we again repeat the suggestion, that the Cbnriifwtfonafiri will have its hands full keeping Radicalism oat of its own shop. We can manage to keep np onr end of the pole very comfortably. THE ENFORCEMENT ACT. We publish in the Chbonicle and j Sentinel this morning the foil text of the decision pronounced a few days ago by the Snpreme Court of the United States in the Grant Parish and Kentueky election cases. The decisions are lengthy but we give them in extenso, and to the exclusion of editorial and other matter because of their interest to the public They are unquestionably the most im portant judgments that have been ren dered by the Supreme Court of the United States sinoe Judge Taney de cided the famous Deed Scott case. It is true that the Court has not decided squarely against the constitutionality of the infamous Enforcement act. Our re collection ia that the constitutionality of the entire act was not presented sa an iasue by the counsel in either ease. The inference, however, seems plain that mpon a proper case being made the Oonrt will decide against the validity of the whole law. As it is, the decisions rob Mie statute of its sting and render it practically inoperative and wholly use less as a political agency. The decis ions are almost the nnanimons opinions of the Court—Mr. Justioe Hunt, Sena tor Conkuno’s nominee, alone dissent ing. The Hew York World eomplimsnts Mr. Chief Justice Waite in the highest terms upon what ho has done, and says hit judgment in these eases shows that he has determined to follow in the foot steeps of his illustrious predecessors upon the Bench—J at, Marshall sod Taney. Wo have no disposition to de tract a single iota from its piaise of Gen eral Grant’s Chief Justice. the oonmtitltuwauwt. - Under the able business and editorial management of Mr. E. & Pcohe, that old and reliable Democratic organ, the Constitutionalist, has been placed on s firm foundation and bids fair to do a prosperous business. Mr. Pughs is aa able manager sod experienced newspa per man. Tbs sucoesa of the National Republican, that bitter and intensely loyal sheet, published in Angusta daring the Radical regime in Georgia, ia suffi cient evidence of Mr. PuaHs’s*bility aa a publisher and journalist. The Con stitutionalist, under Mr. Puohb’b man agement, will doubtless be extensively patronized by the people of Georgia and South Carolina. COLUMBIA COUNTY. KUurU r lll— mt A* Cfcroolrte ul Meatiaei. Appling, March 28,1876. Jalf* OSi—’ Ofcaiwe. The Spring term of the Superior Court, Judge Wm. Gibbon presiding, convened yesterday. In bis charge to the Grand Jury, of which Hon. 8. O. Lamkin ia foreman, hie Honor delivered quite a homily on temperance, virtue and edu cation. The Judge was unusually im pressive and prayerful in his admoni tions and appeals. He was vehement against “X Roads groceries” and the drones who support and conduct them. Altogether the charge was brimful of precepts of wisdom, which fell upon at tentive ears. The Bar. • The large gathering of the legal fra ternity might denote something besides the ordinary routine of Court business —something in the way of important causes with fat fees—but there are no new oases of any special importance. There are some, however, of the Jabhdycb or der on hand, and those are likely to be, like a story in a weekly paper, continued. The members of the bar are ; Messrs. Wm. M. A M. P. Reese and D. M. Du- Bose, of Washington; W. D. Tutt, Paul C. Hudson, H. C. Roney and Jubiah H. Casey, of Thomson; H. J. Lang and J. E. Stbotheb, of Lincoln; ; as. P. Vebdeby, Thos. H. Gibson, F. T. Lock hart, Charles A. Harper, 8. Warren Mays, L. D. Duval, Thad. Oakman, Geo. T. Barnes, W. R. MoLaws, and Davenport Jackson, Solicitor-General, of Richmond; Messrs. D. C. Moore, Chas. H. Shockley, J. Smith and J. D. Shockley represent the local bar, the latter being admitted to practice after a searching examination by Jndge Reese and Messrs. Tutt and Jackson. The case of the State against Noah Kent, for the murder of Michael Cal lahan, will be tried Wednesday. The accused, who has been in jail sinoe the mnrder, is represented by L. D. Duval, Esq. The evidence is circumstantial, but the feeling against the prisoner is strong. Kent is a native of Riohmond county. The Coanty Oat af DefcL In 1873 the coanty owed Dearly $7,- 000. This indebtedness has been paid, and Columbia does not owe a dollar to day. In addition to paying off this debt, several new bridges have been bnilt, one of which (that on the Peters burg road, over Uohee creek) cost $1,950. The tax levy for county pnr poses each year has been abont $5,000. D. C. Moore, Esq., Ordinary, has man aged the affairs of the county faithfully and efficiently, and the people will ap preciate his services by re-eleoting him to the position which he has filled so acceptably. All of the county officers are good men—temperate and oapable. The Planting Interest. The people have planted largely of bm&ll grain, and the prospects are fa vorable for an increased yield of oats and wheat. The area of land in corn will also be greater than last year. The oold snap will render neoessary the re planting of corn, as in soma oases where already planted and above the ground, it has been killed. Commeroial fertilizers, where used at ail, nave iu used spar ingly. The people will behard pressed, as they have to rely solely upon their own resources to make a crop, but they will manage to get along and be the better off at the end of the season for their self-reliance and forced economy. Necessity will force the people to make supplies, but those who never learn by experience will continue to make them selves poorer by planting largely in cot ton, in order to sell it when made below the cost of production. Farmers who keep their smoke houses and com cribs in the West deserve but little sympathy from their neighbors. A Pleasant Trie. The writer, In company with one of Augusta’s most enterprising merchants and large-hearted oitizens, Mr. Jambs A. Gray, made the trip from Augusta to Appling, twenty-two miles, in three hoars. The roads generally are in fair condition, and Mn Gbat’s handsome and spirited horses oonld have easily made the trip in leas time. There are evidences of thrift and industry along the road—the fenoes are goed and the laud ia all under cultivation. Old as it iB, it ia still capable of producing good orops. With small farms, better cultivation and less land, the valley of the Savannah oould be made to bloom like the rose. The Augusta and Hartwell Batbwvd Will.one day become an absolute neces* sity—indeed, it is au absolute necessity now to the people on both sidee of the Savannah and to the mercantile interests of Auguste. At on# time, and not a long time ago either, Augusta was the reservoir from whioh the upper coun ties of Georgia aud of South Carolina drew their supplies. This trade was extensive and lucrative, bat it has now all passed into other channels. There is but one way in whioh it oan be diverted from those channels and brought back, and that is by the proposed Au guste and Hartwell Railroad. The building of this road would develop a splendid oountry—a country that would naturally attroot a Urge influx of indus trious farmers—the product* of whose | hands would find theii; way to Auguste, j Something should be done for this road, j Although overburdened with a heavy 1 debt, Augusta is not too poor to aid this road. The question should be agi tated and immediate steps taken to re vive the enterprise and bring it promi nently before the people- It is probable that State aid to the extent of $4,000 per guile will be given the Marrielte and North Georgia Railroad by the next Legislature. If the Augusta and Hart well Company ia properly organized and plaoed in the hand# of men in whom the people have confidence, there is no good reason why aid should be given to a railroad to develop one •action and re fused to a railroad to develop another. With State aid and the aid of the people along the line of the toad, and a liberal subscription from Augusta, the Auguste and Hartwell oould be built. Brief Mwdw. In case Mr. Shifhene resigns, or fails to be nominated by the next Conven tion, Judge Wm. Gibson will become an independent candidate for Cos agrees. He thinks that he can carry the District as an independent Aa the J Judge’s oandidaqy will depend upon oertain contingencies that are possible but not probable, as long as Mr. Ste phens lives, it ia not neoessary to dis cuss the “ethics” of independent candi dates at this time. It ia stated that Hon. & C. Lamkin, who ban represented Columbia In the Legislature for six years, win decline going before the Convention for a re nomination. The highest compliment that oan be paid a representative* to say that he did his duty faithfully and to the best of his ability, sad this mb be said of Mr. Lamkin with all sinceri ty. The names of Captain F.E.Evnsnd Mr. J. P. Williams, it is rumored, mil be nrnirvNnrl to the Convention. Colonel Bwrar provide, the proven der tor the legal Wtoty. and their epicurean testes are always satisfied with the substantial, sad daheask* which his ball of flu* aootaißß. hw supplies a good ttefle. ' - be pleased to learn that he has quit “ ” “ dAtu % T* THE DISTRICT COBCPOmOJf. We are reminded by tee Gazette that Washington area left out of the list of places where the Gonvemtion could meet to select delegates to St. Louis to nominate a candidate for Presi dent and Vice-President.' We sug gested to the Executive Committee, which is to meet in Augusta Monday, that either Thomson, Sparta, Warren ton, Crawfordville or Greenesboro be jkiw la a thi biUl'm “ ■ tiou. We expressed the hope that Au guste would not be selected as tha place; but we unintentionally omitted Wash ington from the list of places where the District Convention for the selection of delegates could be held. The Gazette calls our attention to tee omission and announces Washington aa a candidate for the Convention to beheld there. Our cotemporary states teat there will be am ple accommodation foi the delegates, and that no town in Georgia has more hos pitable oitizens, and that there is no town where the delegates will fare any better. We cordially endorse all that the Gazette sayß of its beautiful town and hospitable citizens. Washington would suit ns, and we cheerfully name it as a candidate for the honor of hold ing the District Convention. Auguste is willing to divide the honors with her smaller sisters in the interior. mupkrmk court of this united STATUS. No. 1 GO—October Term, 1876. Harvey Terry, Plaintiff in Error, vs. Emily B. Tnbman. In error to the Cir curt Court of the United States tot the Southern District of Georgia. Mr. Justioe Hunt delivered the Opinion of the Court. The plaintiff, a oitizen of Georgia, brings his action to recover from Mrs. Tnbman the sum of $5,400. He alleges that he holds the circulating notes of tee Bank of Angnsta, Georgia, to teat amount, and that tee defendant was, in June, 1862, and thenceforth, a holder of three hundred and seven shares of the •took of that bank, of the nominal value of one hundred dollars per share. The Bank of Angnsta was chartered Decem bers?, 1845, and its charter contained the following provision: “Sec. 3. That the individual property of tee stockholders in said bank shall be bound for the ultimate redemption of the bills issued by said bank in propor tion to the number of shares held by them respectively; and in case of a fail ure of said bank, all transfers of stock made within six months prior to a fail ure or refnsal on the part of said bank to redeem its liabilities in speois when required, shall be void, and the private property of the individual or individuals transfering said stock shall be liable for the redemption of the bills of said bank as above stated.” The defendant plead ed tee statute of limitation, alleging tbat all of the bank notes sued on were issued bv the Augusta bank prior to J one 1, 1865, and that before that date the bonk had became insolvent, unable to meet its liabilities, had voluntarily stopped payment and ceased to do business, and so continued down to the time of the plea. To this plea tee plaintiff demur red. The Circuit Court rendered judg ment for the defendant on this plea, from whioh the plaintiff brings bis writ of error to this Court. The statute of limitations of the State of Georgia was passed on the 16th March, 1869, and is as follows, so far as this aotion is con cerned, viz : “Sec. 3. And it is farther enacted, That all actions on bonds or other in struments under seal, and all suits for the enforcement of rights accruing to individuals or corporations under the statutes or aots of incorporation, or in any way by operation of law, which accrued prior to Ist June, 1865, not now barred, shall be brought by Ist January, 1870, or the right of the party, plaintiff or claimant, and all right of aotion for its enforcement, shall be forever bar “Seo. 6. That all other aotions on contracts, express or implied, or upon any debt or liability whatsoever due the publio, or a corporation, or a private in dividual or individuals, whioh aoorued prior to tee Ist June, 1865, and are not now barred, shall be brought by Ist January, 1870, or both the right and the >i<rht of aotion to enforce it shall bo for ever barrod. All limitations hereinbe fore expressed shall apply as well to Courts of equity as Courts of law, and the limitations shall take effeot in all cases mentioned in this aot, whether the right of action had aotually aocrued prior to the Ist Jane, 1865, or was then only inohoate and imperfect, if the con tract or liability was then in existence.” The plea demurred to alleges, and it is to be here assumed to be true, that the bank notes held by the plaintiff had been issued prior to June .1, 1865, the time specified in the limitation aot just quoted. It is further alleged, ana to be taken as trne, that prior to that time the bank had became notoriously insol vent, unable to meet its liabilities, and had ceased to do business. The ques tion is whether the right pf action now sought to be enforoed, had, on or be fore June 1,. 1865, by means of these facts, aoorued to the plaintiff. If it had, the present action is barrbd by the statute, for it oan hardly be contend ed that this is not ope of the aotions embraoed within the terms of the statute. The plaintiff insists that no cause of ac tion against the stockholder existed on tee first of Jane, 1865, and not until the bank had made its assignment in 1866, its affairs had been administered and a made upon the bank aud had been re fused. His fourth point is this: “4th. That the liability of said defend ant stoekbo}4 er (had not attached and did not attach, under W*d charter) to pay said bank bills before tfep assign ment of said bank and the assets of said bank had been administered and ap plied to payment of its debts, and did not ftUtfib until demand for payment was made on uc/d bank bills, and, there fore, said actios did Bflf aoorne before the first day of June, 1865, but gggrned since the assignment ol said bank, and the administration of the assets, estab lishing the ultimate liabililitv of said stockholders, and sinoe the breach of contract (z) pp demand, to wit, on the day of this suit.” In this point the plaipfif alleges that the defendant's liability did not attaob when tec ftssete of tee bank bad been administered and de*h*®d of.payment made opo tha bapk. and that the de fendant was pot liable until that time. The fsots upon which be claims the benefits of this legal result he alleges iu his oomplaint, as follows : “And yonr petitioner avers that the said President, Directors, Company of. the Bank af Augasta, afterwards, tc-wit, on theT** 4*f of January, A. D. 1866, assigned and ednyeyeq. ffff the benefit of its creditors, all of ite prope/fy, both real and personal, its choses in action, olaims and demands of every kind what ever, for the payment Qf ?te debts, in re demption of its bills, sad so far as it oonld do so by its own aet, and for all the purposes of the payment of its debts in tee enforcement of the collection thereof, by suit or otherwise, and for the purpose pf its creation, has become and is a dissolved poiporation ; that it has no place of business* rendering a demand for payment of said bills and a suit against said corporation wholly fu tile aud useless.” There is te tee oomplaint no allega tion that payment ot the bills has ever been demanded of the beak, but {Resent ment tor payment is excused oa the sroand teas the condition of the bank Sadered a demand useless. There is no averment that a judgment had been obtained against tne bank. Of that a suit had been commenced W* P notes It is excused on the ground that it had assigned all of its property and was substantially dissolved. There is no averment that its assets had been admin istered and applied to tee pay mantof m debts, in any other manner than that it was insolvent and had made an assign ment of its property. The plaintiff * al ienations fall short ol what, in his points, XriTtais neoessary to constitute s cause of action. The concurrence qf the toots alleged in the oomplaint and in the manner indicated, brings into operation, aa he insists, the provision of the char ter teat the indimdasl property of tea defendant ia bound for the redemption of the tell# ol the bank, anteonacs the present suit against the defandmiti Up- Snthe theoryof the complaint before oa the climate redemption, for which the property of the stockholder is by statute made liable, is not that amount or proportion remaning of the bankhaye beep spplted. 8 ® „* they will go, inpayment of tee teUs, tor there is no averment teat the toast under the assignment has been closed, °f sfiSssiSSdf gaSagtaSas lira of Py it a suit against tee bank for tha wewory of tee tells would be Metre* These faote create a liability, he insists, whioh justi fy a suit against the defendant commenc ed in 1872. If they do not, he shows no cause of action in his complaint. He has, however, demurred to the defend ant’s plea, which averred that the same facts existed and justified the commeoo ment of a soft on the first day of Jane, 1865; in other words, that hia right of action had*eorued prior to Jane 1,1865, and same isbarred by the statute quoted. Thus, when the plaintiff avers mat the bank made an assignment of all its property and thereby oeasee to exist as a corporation, the defendant makes an equivalent averment when he alleges tbat before the first day of June, 1865, the bank had notoriously flopped pig ment and’ ceased to transact business, the plaintiff alleges that for the reasons stated a demand upon the bank for pay ment, or asuit against it, would be use less, the defendant makes an equivalent averment when he alleges that on the first day of Jncte, 1865, tee bank “had become notoriously insolvent and nnable to meet its liabilities.” It seems te be quite clear that the same allegations made by the plaintiff to show that he had acanse of action when he brought this suit in 1872 are found in tee plea he has demurred to, alleging that the cause of action was in existence on the first day of June, 1865. If his com plaint is good the plea is good. If the plea is bad the complaint is bad. A de murrer seeks the first fault in pleading, and it is with the plaintiff that the first error exists if error there be. We are of the opinion, also, that the facts alleged in the plea are sufficient to make it a good plea; in other words, that the cause of action, so far ae there is a separate and distinct right of action in favor of each bill holder, was in force on the first of Jane, 1865, We are of the opinion that it is not neoessary first to exhaust the assets of the bank by legal proceed ing. The case is not so much like that of the guaranty of the “collection” of a debt, where the previous proceeding against the principal debtor is implied, as it is like a guaranty of “payment,” where resort may be had at once to the guarantor without a previous proceed ing against the principal.—(Wadsworth vs. Wadswoith, 11 Wend., 100; 17 lb., 103; 2 Parsons on Bills and N., p. 142,- 3.) A judgment and execution unsatis fied are evidence of insolvency, of in ability to collect. They are, however, evidence only, and the fact may be es tablished as well by other modes, by an assignment and continued suspension of business, or other notorious indica tions.—(Camden v#. Doremis, 3 How., 533; Reynolds vs. Douglas, 12 Peters, 497 ; 2 Am. Leading Cases, 134—6.) We think the liability for the “nltimate re demption” of the bills, if properly en forced, arises when the bank refuses or ceases to redeem and ia notoriously and eontinnonsly insolvent.— {Auth. supra.) Kimber vs. Bank of Fnlton, 49 Ga. R., 419, is a decision directly in point by the Supreme Coart of the State of Geor gia. The oase of Pollard vs. Bailey, 20 Wall., 521, is an authority against the maintenance of a separate aotion by oue creditor who seeks to obtain his entire debt to the possible exclusion of others similarly situated. The proper pro ceeding is in equity, where all the claims can be presented, all the liabilities of the stockholders ascertained, and a just distribution made. Judgment affirmed. D. W. Middleton. O. S. O. U. S. LETTER FROM WINTERYILLE. A Thriving little Town—A Moral Community —Preparation* for Plowing—Thn Cold Snap —Damage to the Fruit. Wintkrville, Oglethorp Cos.. Ga., ) March 81, 1876. f Editors Chronicle and Sentinel : Need I tell you where Winterville is ? Some of your readers know already, and perhaps those who do not know do not care to know. Still as I may—with your permission—send you an occasional let ter from this place, and as 1 do not care to write as it were from a terra incog nita, it may not be altogether improper for me to say something abont the little village from which I send yon these traditional few lines. Winterville is a railroad town in the northwest corner of good old Oglethorpe. A part of the villege lies across the line in the neigh boring oonnty of Clark. It is one of those nmneronß towns that have grown up along the railroads in Georgia since the close of the war. In 1865 there were only four families living in the vil lage. Now, we have four stores, a steam saw and grist mill, one or two black smiths and carriage shops, and a num ber of comfortable and respectable dwelling houses. The progress of the plaoe has been characterized by gradnal yet steady improvement rather than by rapid development. The population of the village is oomposed of shrewd, hon est, thriving business people, who are fully alive to and who nro ready ta dispense a generous nocpUality to strangers. There is a good school in the village under the charge of Captain Thomas H. Dozier, wno has had mnch successful experience as a teacher. The village is comparatively free from those vioious influences that so frequently dis tinguish small villages. Intemperance and the grosser forms of immorality are almost unknown. There is little news of general inter est to communicate. Farmers are pre paring, as well as the weather and the lateness of the season will allow, for planting. Guano will be used as exten sively as last year. Of course it is out of the question to give any accurate es timate as yet of the relative area of corn and cotton that will be planted. It is probable, I fear, that our people have not yet learned the salutary lesson that pottpfi culture in this section, when allowed to supersede tire culture of corn and small gram, is not profitable to the planter. Truly it requires line upon line and precept upon precept, together with the dearly bought lessons of expe rience, to teach men wisdom. Small grain, especially o*ts, was injured by the recent oold spell, Peaches, as well as other frnit, were seriously damaged by the freeze. Suoh severe and pro tracted oold, so late in March, has not been experienced in this section for many years. P. LETTER FROM GAINESVILLE. The Cftr pt C*ainpyHlo—A Delightful Sum mer Resort—General Rongstreet in the B*tp| Hpflnpss w “ ynple Dpn’J Qpattle bantu, Em, [From Qur Traveling Correspondent .] Gainesville, March 25, 1876. The Superior Court has been in ses sion daring the week, bat owing to the bad weather the attendanoe was small. Gainesville, as yon kpqw, is situated on the Atlanta aDd Richmond Line Railroad. It contains abont three thou sand inhabitants; is a thriving plaoe and building up fast. During the Summer, Gainesville is the resort of people seek ing health spd pleasure. The climate is delightful qqd tffe water is recom mended for it? uppers! properties.— Some of those who were attracted to Gainesville daring the heated term, liking the plimste and location so well, have Inflated bPfe permanently. The mineral springs in this vicinity are among the best in the State. Gen. Lougatraet^attracted to Gaines ville by the haalthtalness of the place, is building a hotel here. Gainesville has a college of which R-v. W. v. Wilkes, A. M., is President. This in stitution is in a flourishing condition. There ars tb re s lurches here—Metho dist, Presbyterian and Baptist. The latter is not quite finished, bqt the pro ceeds realized from an entertainment given last week yill enable the congre gation to have it plastered. In company with Mr. Daniel Quattle banm, I visited General residence, which is about one mile from here. This building, although it cost only $4,000, presents a handsome ap pearance. The view from his porch—of the majestic mountains rising in the dis tance—is very fine. General Jjongstreet will move his family to Gainesville in May. Hon. A. D. Candler, the able and faithful representative from Hall in the Legislature, is the architect and builder of General Longstreet's resi dence. “Uncle Dan” Quattlebanm, formerly of Edgefield, is running the Bowdre House in Gainesville. Daring last Sum mer he had as many as fifty guests at a time. In order to keep up with the re quirements of the public, “Uncle Dan” has made additions to his house, and will be able to provide for as many as seventy-five this poming Summer. He has an attractive place. Mr. Q. is well known in Augusta. Xouy agent was treated courteously and kindly by the people of Gainesville, and takes t!us occasion to return his oordi&l thanks to Col. Jno. B. Estes, Hon. A. D. Candler, and the editors and proprietors of the Eagle and Southern. I leave here to-morrow tot Alpharetta, Milton oonnty. Q. W. N. Garden Work foe April. Many thing* planted last month may now be replanted, if neoessary, to secure good crops, such as cabbage, onions, celery, sweet potatoes, okra, lettuce, radishes, tomatoes, etc. The garden should now be fairly under way. Snaps and lime should be planted. Broccoli may be Bown. a4 paUi£ower for a late crop. Look after ypnr asparagus beds. Plant water and mask melons, squashes and encumbers, in a rich sandy soil, deeply and ngf Transplant strawbernee.pepper, frost with* smoke. • """ Mr. J. G. Shannon iri K W. Camp, Of o°"**“ and Mr Duoige W cmp, ef Garegllto*,' left on Monday last: for Texas on a prospecting tone, -THE BALLOT important decisions of the SUPREME COURT. N The Eofercemeat Aet Void ef Faroe—lM Terms Teo Swee?ia—AMe Elucidation of the Fifteenth Cenetitutianal Amendment—A State Right* Triumph—The Grant Pariah and Kentucky Case* Dismissed. No. 339. The United Btatii plaintiff in “rror, vs. William J. Cruikshank, William D. Irwin and John P. Hndnut —ln error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Lou isiana Mr! Chief Justice Waite deliv ered tee opinion of the .Court. This case comes here with a certificate by the Judges of the Circuit Oonrt for the Dis mui urmuißimi, uin uay ded in opinion upon a question which occurred at the hearing. It presents for onr consideration an indictment con taining sixteen counts, divided, into two series of eight counts each, based fiipon section 6 of the Enforcement aot of May 31, 1870. That section is as follows ; “ That if two or more persons shall band or conspire together, or go in dis guise upon the public highway, or upon the premises of another, with intent to violate any provision of this act, or to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any citizen, with intent to prevent or hinder his foil exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or se cured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised tee same, such persons shall be held gnilty of felony, and, on convic tion thereof, shall be fined or imprison ed, or both, at the discretion of the Oonrt, the fine not to exceed $5,000 and the imprisonment not to exceed ten years; and shall, moreover, be thereaf ter ineligible to and disabled from hold ing any office or place of honor, profit or trust created by the Constitution or laws of tea United States.” (16 Stat., 141.) The question certified arose upon a motion in arrest of judgment after a ver dict of gnilty generally upon the whole sixteen counts, and is stated to be whether the said sixteen counts of said indictment are severally good and suf ficient in law, and contain charges of criminal matter indictable under the laws of the United States. The general charge in the first eight counts is that of ‘*banding,” and in the second eight that of “conspiring” to gether to injure, oppress, threaten aud intimidate Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, oitizens of the United States of African desoent and persons of color, with the intent thereby to hinder and prevent them in their full exercise and enjoyment of rights and privileges granted and secured to them in common with all other good oitizens of the Uni ted States. By the Constitution and laws of the United States, the offenses provided for by the statute in question do not consist in the mere “bandiDg” or “conspiring’’ of two or more persons to gether, but in their banding or conspir ing with the intent or for any of the purposes specified. To bring this ease uuder the operation of this statute, therefore, it must appear that the right, the enjovment of which the conspirators intended, to hinder or prevent, was one granted or secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. If it does not so appear the criminal matter oharged has not been made indiotable by any act of Congress. We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, >ind each has oitizens of its own who owe it allegiance and whose rights within its jurisdiction it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a oitizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these govern ments will be different from those he has under the other. (Slaughter house cases, 16 Wall, 74) Oitizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have estab lished or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the pro motion of their general welfare and the protection, of their individual, as well as their collective rights. In the forma tion of a government the people may oonfer upon it suoh powers as they choose. The government when so formed may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its citi zens and the people within its jurisdic tion, but it can exeroise no other. The dnty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possess es for that purpose. Experience made the fact known to the people of the United States that they required a National Government for national purposes. The separate governments of the separate States, bound, together by the articles ot conrederation ©lone, were not suffi cient for the promotion of the general welfare of the people in respect to for eign nations, or for the complete pro tection as citizens of the confederated States; for this reason the people of the United States, “in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justioe, secure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty” to themselves and their posteri ty—-(Constitution preamble) —ordained and established the Governmeat of the United States, and defined its powers by a constitution which they adopted as its fundamental law and made its rule of aotion. The government thus estab lished and defined is, to some extent, a government of the States in their politi cal capacity. It is also for certain pur poses a government of the people. Its powers are limited in number, but not in degree. Within the scope of its powers as enumerated and defined it is supreme and above the States, but be yond it has no existence. It was erected for speoial purposes and endowed with ail the powers necessary for its own preservation and the accomplishment of the ends its people had in view. It oan neither grant nor seoure to its oitizens any right or privilege not expressly or by implication plaoed nnder its juris diction. The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments, one State and the othef National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which the one possesses the other does not. They are established for different purposes and have separate j urjsdictions. Together tesy make one Whole and fur nish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act. Thus, if a marshal of the United States is nnlawfully resisted while exeouting the process of the Courts within a State, and the resistance is accompanied by an assault on the officer, the sovereignty of the United States is violated by the re sistance, aqd that qf fh® State by the breaoh of peace in the assault, f , too, if one passes the counterfeited ,oln of the United States within a State, it may be an offense against the United States and the State—the fjnited States, be cause it disciefiits the eoin, and the State, because of the fraud upon him to whom it is passed, This does not, however, necessarily imply that the :wo governments possess powers in common, or that bring them into conflict with each other. It is the uatnral consequence of a citizenship which owes ollegianoe to two sovereign ties and claitUs protection from both. The oitizen eainot complain, because he has yoluutarily submitted himself to such a form °! government. He owes allegiance to tip two departments, so to speak, and, within their respective spheres, must pay the penalties which each exacts foi disobedience to its laws. In return be oan demand protection from each witiin its own jurisdiction.— The Govemaint of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its an thority is defined and limited by the Constitution; all powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to tee States or the peqple. I)g rights oan be acquired ond<r the Constitution or laws of the United States except such as the Government the United States has the anthorito to grant or secure. All that cannot to so granted or secured are left ujiler te® protection of the States. We now pnceed to sn examination of tee indiotin*its to ascertain whether the several lights which it is alleged the defendarts intended to interfere with aresookas had been in law and in fact granted ,or secured by the CJonsti tution or lam of the United States. The first and nint| counts states the intent of the defendants to have been to hinder and prevent the citizens named in the full exerois* and enjoyment of their “lawful right! and privileges to peace ably assembu together with each other, and with o;ler citizens of the United States, for a peaceful mid lawful pur pose." Tk right of the people peace ably to assemble for lawful purposes ex isted long Defore the adoption of the Constitutioi of the United States. In fact, it is and always has been one of the ettribatis of citizenship under a free government. It derives ita souroe, to use the langmge of Chief Justioe Mar shall in Giltons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheat, 9.11, from these laws whose authority is acknowledge by civilized man through out tee wort* it ia found wherever civil- Ration i>TWrr it not there for a right granted to tfie peopleby Con stitution. Tip Governmeiri ot tha Xfmt ed State* wh® found it in existence w$ the qbligatiqn on tee Congress. 1 remains acoordjngto the ruling in Gitfious vs, Ogden, 9 Wheat., 203i-feabjeet to only such existing rights were oommitted by the people to the protection of Congress as came within the general scope of the authority granted to the National Government. The first amend ment Of the Constitution prohibits Con gress from abridging the right of the people to assemble and to petition the Government for a redresss of griev anoes. This, like the other amend ments proposed and adopted at the same time. Was not intended to limit the pow ers of State government in respect to their own citizenship, but operate on the National Government alone. Barron va. The City of Baltimore, 76 Pet. 25; TANARUS., Lessee of Livingston, va. Moore, 7 Pet. 551; Ftfx wa Ohio, 5 How., 434; Smith va. Maryland, 18 How., 76; With tn *. Hockley, 20 How., 2d; Pervear vs. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall., 479; Twit'chell va. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall., 321; Edwards t>. Elliott* 21 Wall, 557. It is now too late to question the correctness of this construction, as was said by the late Chief Justioe in Twitch nll vs. The Commonwealth, p. 325. The scope and application of these amend ments are no longer subjects of discus sion here. They left the authority of the States jnst where they found it, and added nothing to the already existing power of the United States. The par ticular amendment now under consid eration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for law ful purposes, and protects it against en croachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment, neither was its continuance guaranteed except as against Congressional inter ference. For their protection in its en joyment, therefore, the people mast look to the States. There is where the power for that purpose was originally plaoed, and it has never been surrender ed to the United States. The right of the people peaoeably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances or for anything connected with the powers or dnties of the National Government is an attribute of national citizenship, and as such un der the protection of and guaranteed by the United States. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a re dress of grievances. If, a3 it has been alleged in these counts, the object of the defendant was to prevent a meeting for snoh a purpose, the course would have been within the statute and within the scope of the sovereignty of the United States. Such, however, is not the case. The offense as stated in the indictments will be made out if it be shown that the object of the conspiracy was to prevent a meeting for any lawful purpose whatever. The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of bearing arms for a lawful purpose. This is not a right granted by the Constitu tion. Neither is it in any manner de pendent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment de clares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amend ments that have no other effect than to restriot the powers of the National Gov ernment, leaving the people to look for their protection against any viola tion by their fel’ow-oitizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called, in the City of New York va Mine (11 Pet., 189\ “the powers whioh relate to merely municipal legis lation,” or what was perhaps more prop erly called “internal police,” not sur rendered or restrained, by the Constitu tion of the United States. The third and eleventh counts are ever more ob jectionable. They charge the intent to have been to deprive the citizens named (they living in Louisiana) of their re spective several lives and liberty of per son, without the dne process of law. This is nothing else than alleging a conspiracy to falsely imprison or mur der citizens of the United States, being within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Louisiana. The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. “To secure these rights,” says the Declaration of Independence, “govern ments are instituted among men, deriv ing their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The very highest duty of the States when they entered into the Union, under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these “inalienable rights” with whioh they were endowed by their Creator. Sov ereignty for this purpose rests alone with the States. It is no more the duty or within the power of the United States, to pnnish for a conspiracy, to falsely im prison or murder within a State than it would be'to punish for false imprison ment or murder itself. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against an other; it simply furnishes an additional guaranty agaiqst any encroachment by the State upon the fundamental rights whioh belong to every citizen as a mem ber of society, as was said by Mr. Jus tice Johnson, in Bank of Columbia va. O’Kely, 4 Wheat., 244. It secures the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unre strained by the established principles of private rights and distributive justice. These counts in the indiotment do not call for the exercise of any of the pow ers conferred by this provision in the amendmeht. The fourth and twelfth counts oharge the inteut to, have been to prevent and hinder the citizens named, who were of Afrioan descent and persons of color, in "the free exercise and enjoyment of their several rights and privileges to the full and equal benefit of all laws and pro ceedings then and before that time en acted or ordained by the said State of Louisiana and by the United States, and then and there at that time being in force in the same State and district of Louisiana aforesaid for the security of their respective persons and property then and there at that time enjoyed at and within said State and district of Louisiana by white persons, being citi zens of said State of Louisiana and the United States, for the protection of the persons and property of said white citi zens.” There is no allegation that this was done beoaqse of the rape qr color of the persons conspired against. When stripped of its verbiage the oase, as pre sented, amounts to nothing more than thaftbe defendants aonspired to prevent certain citizens of the United States, be ing within the State of Louisiana, from enjoying equal protection of the laws of the State and of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the lawsj but this provision does not any more than the one which precedes it, and whiph we have jqst considered, add anything to the rights which one citizen has under the Constitution against an other. The equality of the rights of oitizens is a principle of republicanism. Every republican government is in duty bound to proteot all its citizens in the enjoyment of this principle if within its power. That duty was originally as sumed by the States, and it still remains there. The only obligation resting npon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the National Government is limited to the enforcement of this guaranty. No question arises under the Civil Bights bill of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat., 27, which is intended for the pro tection of citizens of the United States in the enjoyment of certain rights, with ont discriminating on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude, because, as baa already been stated, it is nowhere alleged in these counts that the wrong contemplated against the rights of these citizens was on acoount of their race or color. Another objection is made to these connta that they are too vague and uncertain, Thi wifi be con sidered hereafter in connection with the same objection* tq other counts. The sixth and fourteenth counts state thf intent of the defendants to have been to hinder and prevent the citizens named, being of African descent and colored, in the free exercise and enjoy ment of their several and respective rights to vote at any election to be there after by law had and held by the people, in and of the said State of Louisiana, or by the people ,of and in the parish of Grant aforesaid. In Minor va. Happer sett, 21 Wall, 178, We decided that the Constitution of the United State* has not conferred the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the United States have no voters of their own creation in the States. In the United States va. Reese, just decided, we hold that the Fifteenth Amendment has invested the citizens of the United States with anew constitutional right, which is exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on aooonnt of race, color or previous condition of servitude. From this it appears that the right of suffrage is not a necessary attribute of national citizenship, bat that exemption from discrimination in the exercise of that right on account of race, Ac., ia. The right to vote in the States comes from the States; but the right of exemp tion from the prohibited discrimination comes from the United States. The first has not been granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States, bat the last has been. Inasmuch, there fore, as it does not appear in these counts that the intent qf the defendants was to prevent these parties from exer cising theit right to vote on account of their ace, Ac., it does not appear that it wa their intent to interfere with any right granted or secured by the Cousti tation ox laws of theUfiited States. We may suspect that race was the cause of the hostility, but it is not so averred. This is material to a description of the substance of the offense, and cannot be supplied by implication. Everything essential must be charged positively or not inferentially. The defect here is not in farm, but in substance. The seventh and fifteenth counts are no better than the sixth and fourteenth. The intent here charged is tosut the parties named in great fear of bodily harm, and to injure and oppress them, because being and having been in all things qualified they bad voted “at an election before that time, had and held according to law by the people of the teid State of Louisiana, in said State, to-wit: on the fourth day of November, A. D. 1872, and at divers other elections by the the State, also before that time lia*- and held according to law. There is nothing to show that the elections voted at were any other than State elections, or that the conspiracy was formed on account of the race of the parties against whom the conspira tors were to act. The charge as made is really of nothing more than a conspiracy to commit a breach of the peace within a State. Certainly it will not be claimed that the United States have the power or are required to do mere police duty in the States. If a State' cannot proteot itself against domestic violence the United States may, upon the call of the Executive, when the Legislature cauuot be convened, lend their assistance for that purpose. This is a guaranty of the Constitution (artiole 4, section 4), bat it applies to no case like this. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the first, seoond, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, four teenth and fifteenth counts do not con tain charges of a criminal natare made indictable Under the laws of the United States, and that consequently they are not good and sufficient in law. They do not show that it was the intent of the defendants, by their conspiracy, to hin der or prevent the enjoyment of any right granted or secured by the Consti tution. We come now to consider the fifth and thirteenth and the eighth and sixteenth counts, which may be brought together for that purpose. The intent charged in the fifth and thirteenth is to “hinder and prevent the parties in their respec tive and free exeroise and enjoyment of the rights, privileges, immunities and protection granted and secured to them respectively as citizens of the United States aud as citizens of the said State of Louisiaua,” fer the reason that they, being then and there oitizens of said State, and of the United States, were persons of Afrioan de scent and race and persons of color, and not white oitizens thereof ; and in the eighth and sixteenth “to hinder and prevent them in their several and re spective free exercise and enjoyment of every, each, all and singnlar, the several rights and privileges granted and secur ed to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” The same gene ral statement of the rights to be inter fered with is found in the fifth and thir teenth coants. According to the view we take of these Counts the question is not whether it is enough in general to describe a statutory offense in the lan guage of the statute, but whether the offense has here been described at all. The statute provides for the punishment of those who oonspire “to injure, threat en or intimidate any citizen with intent to prevent or hinder his full exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or secured to him by the Con stitution or laws of the United States.” These counts in the indiotment charge in substance that the intent in this case was to hinder and prevent these oitizens in the free exercise and enjoyment of every, each, all and singular, the rights granted them by the Constitution, Ac. There is no specification of any particu lar right. The language is broad enough to cover all. In criminal cases prose cuted under the laws of the United States the aooused has the constitution al right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the aoensation.” (Amend ment 6 ) In United States vs. Mills, 7 Pet. 142, this was construed to mean that the indictment must set forth the offense “ with clearness and all necessa ry certainty to apprise the accused of the crime with which hestandscharged.” And in United States va. Cook, 17*Wall., 174, “that every ingredient of which the offense is composed must be accurately and clearly alleged.” It is an elementa ry principle of criminal pleading that where the definition of an offense, whether it be at common law, or by statute, “includes generic terms, it is not sufficient that the indictment shall charge the offense in the same generic terms as in the definition, but it must state the species, it must descend to par ticulars” (1 Arch. Cr. Pr. andP. L. 291.) The object of the indiotment is, first, to furnish the accused with such a descrip tion of the charge against him ar will enable him to make his defense and avail himself of his conviction or ac quittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause; aud second, to inform the Court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had, for this. Facts are to be stated, not conclu sions alone. A crime is made up of aots and intent, aud these mast be set forth in the indiotment, with reasonable par ticularity of time and place and circum stances. It is a crime to steal goods and chattels, but an indictment would be bad that did not specify with some de gree of certainty the articles stolen, This, because the aoensed must he ad vised of the eMtential particulars of the charge against him, and the Court must be able to decide whether the property taken was such aa was the subject of larceny. So, too, it is in some States a -crime for two or more persons to oon spire to cheat and defraud another oat of his property; but it has been held that an indiotment for such an offense must contain allegations setting forth the means proposed to be used to ac complish the purpose. This, because to make such a purpose criminal, the con spiracy must be to cheat and defraud in a mode made criminal; it is necessary for the indieffment to state the means proposed in order that the Coart may see that they are, in fact, illegal (State va. Parker, 43 N. H.,83; State us. Reach, 40 Vt., 118; Alderman va. The People, 4 Mich,, H 4; State va. Roberts, 34 Maine, 32). In Maine it is an offense for two or more to conspire with the intent, un lawfully and wickedly, to edtnmit any orime punishable by imprisonment in the State Prison (State vs. Roberts), but we think it will hardly be oiaimed that an indiotmenc would be good under this statate, which charged the objeot of the conspiracy to have been unlawfully and wickedly to commit each, every, all and singular the crimes punjshahle by im prisonment jn the State Prison. All crimes are not so punishable. Whether a particular orime be suoh an one or not is a question of law. The aooused has, therefore, the right to have a speci fication of the oharge against him in this respeot, in order that he may decide whether he should present his defense by motion to quash, demurrer or plea, and the Court that it may determine whether the facts will sustain the in dictment. So where the crime is made to consist in the unlawful combination with an intent to prevent the enjoyment of any right granted or secured by the Constitution, Ac. All rights are not so granted or secured. Whether one is so or not is a question of law to be decided by the Court, not by the prosecutor. Therefore, the indictment aho.nld state particulars to inform the Qourt as well as the accused. It must be made to appear—that is to say, appear from the indiotment, without going further—that the acts oharged will, if proven, support a conviction for the offense alleged. Bat it is needless to pursue the argument further. The conclusion is irresistable that these counts are too vague and general. They laok the oerteinty and precision required by the established rules of criminal pleading, It follows that they are not good and sufficient in law. They are eo defective that no judgment of oonviction should be pro nounced upon them. The order of the Circuit Court arresting the judgment upon the verdict is, therefore, affirmed and the case remanded, with instruc tions to discharge the defendants. Mr. Justice Clifford dissented from the opinion, hut concurred in the judg ment. No. 145. The United States, plaintiffs, va. Hiram Reese and Matthew Fousbee, in error to the Oircait Court of the Unit ed States for the District of Kentucky. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the Court. This case comes here by reason of a division of opinion between the Judges of the Oircait Court in the District of Kentucky. It presents an indictment containing fonr counts under sections three and fonr of the act of May 31,1870, 18 Stat., 140, against two of the inspectors of mnnioipal election in the State of Kentucky for refusing to re ceive and connt at such election the vote of William Garner, a citizen of the Unit ed States of Afrioan descent. All the questions presented by the certificate of division arose upon general demurrers to the several counts of the indictment in this Court, The United States aban don the first and third eonnts, and ex pressly wave the consideration of ail claims not arising out of the enforce ment of the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution. After this concession the principal question left for consideration is whether the act under which the in dictment is found can he made effective for punishment of inspectors of elec tions who refuse to reoeive sod count the votes of citizens of the United States having all the qualifications of voters because of their race, color or previous condition 6T servitude. If Congress has not deolared an act done within a State to be crime against the United States, the Courts have no power to treat as snoh—“United, States vs. Hudson, 7 Oranoh., 32.” It is not oiaimed that there is any statate whicb can reach this oaae unless it be the one in ques tion. Looking then to this statute, we find its first seotion provides that all oitizens of the United States who are or shall be otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election, Am, shall be en titled and allowed to vote thereat with out distinction of race, oolor or previous condition of servitude, any constitution, Ao., of the State notwithstanding. This simply declares the right without pro viding punishment for its violation. The seoond seotion provides lor the punish ment of aay offioer oharged with the duty of furnishing to oitizens an opportunity to perform any act which, by the Constitution and laws of any State, is made a prerequisite or qualification of voting, who shall omit to give all oitizens of the United States the same and equal opportunity to per form such prerequisite and become qualified on aooount of raoe, oolor or previous condition of servitude of th> applicant. This does not apply to or iuclnde the inspectors of an election, whose only duty it is to receive and count the votes of oitizens designated by law as voters, who have already be come qualified to vote at the eleotion. The third seotion is to the effeot that whenever by or under the constitution or laws of any State, Am, any act is or shall be required to be done by any citi zen as a prerequisite to quality or enti tle him to vote, the offer of suoh citizen to perform the aot required to be done, as aforesaid, shall, if it fail to be carried into execution by reason of wrongful aot or omission, as aforesaid, of the person or officer oharged with the duty of re ceiving or permitting suoh performance, or offer to perform, or acting thereon, be deemed and held as a performance in law of suoh act, find the person so offer ing and failing, as aforesaid, and being otherwise qualified, shall be entitled to vote in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had in faot performed suoh act, and any judge, inspector, or other officer of election whose daty it is to receive, oonnt, Ac., or to give effeot to the vote of any such oitizen who shall wrongfully refuse, or omit to receive, Ao., the vote of such oitizen npon rep resentation by him of his affidavit stating suoh offer, and the time and place thereof, and the name of the per son or officer whole duty it was to act thereon, and that he was wrongfully prevented by suoh person or offioer from performing snob act, snail, for every such offense, forfeit and pay, Ao. The fourth section provides for the punish ment of any person who shall, by force, bribery, threats, intimidation or other unlawful means binder, delay, Ac., or shall continue with others to hinder, delay, prevent or obstruct any citizen from doing any act required to be done to qualify him to vote or from voting at any election. The seoond count in the indiotment is based upon the fourth seotion of this act and the fourth upon the third sec tion. Bights and immunities created by or dependent npon the Constitution of the United States oan be proteoted by Congress. The form and the manner of the protection may be such as Con gress in the legitimate exercise of its legislative discretion shall provide.— These may be varied to meet the neces sities of the particular right to be pro tected. The Fifteenth Amendment does not confer the right of suffrage npon anyone. It prevents the States or the United States, however, from giving preference to one oitizen of the United States over another on account of race, oolor or previons condition ot servitude. Before its adoption this could not be done. It was as muoh in the power of a State to exolude oitizens of the United States from voting on account of race, Ao., as it was on aooonnt of age, proper ty or eduoation. Now it is not. Pre vious to this amendment there was no constitutional guaranty against this discrimination. Now there is.— It follows that the amendment has invested the oitizens of the United States with anew constitutional right, which is within the protective power of Congress. That right is ex emption from discrimination in the ex ercise of the elective franchise of raoe, oolor, Ao. This, under the express pro vision of the second section of the amendment, Congress may enforce by “appropriate legislation.” This leads ns to inquire whether the act now under consideration is “appropriate legisla tion” for that purpose. The power of Congress to legislate at all upon the subject of voting at State elections rests upon this amendment. The effect of artiole 1, section 4, of the Cbustitntion in respeot to elections for Senators and Representatives is not now under consideration. It has not been contended, nor can it be, that the amendment confers authority to impose penalty for every wrongful refusal to receive the vote of a qualified eleotor at State elections. It is only where the wrongful refusal at suoh an election is because of race, color or previous con dition of servitude that Congress oan in terfere and provide for its punishment. If, therefore, the 3d and 4th sections of the aot are beyond that limit they are nnanthorized. The third section does not in express terms limit the offense of sn inspector of elections, for which the punishment is provided to a wrongful discrimination on account of race, Ac. This is conceded, bat it is urged that when this seotion is con strued with those whioh precede it, and to whioh, as is oiaimed, it refers, is so limited. The argument is that the only wrongful aot on the part of the offioer, whose daty it is to reoeive or permit the requisite qualification, which can dis pense with actual qualification under the State laws and snbstitnte the pre scribed affidavit therefor, is that men tioned and prohibited in 'section 2, to wit, discrimination on account of raoe, Ao., and that consequently seotion 3 is confined in its operation to the same wrongful discrimination. This is a penal statute, anti must be construed strictly; not so strictly, indeed, as to defeat the clear intention of Congress, but the words employed mast be under stood in the sense they were obviously used (United States va. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 85). If, taking the whole statute together, it is apparent that it was not the intention of Congress thns to limit the operation of the act we oannot give it that effect. The statute contemplates a most important change in the eleotion laws. Previous to its adoption the States as a general rule regulated in their own way all the details of *all elec tions, they prescribed the qualifications of voters and the manner in whioh those offering to vote at an election should make known their qualifi cations to the officers in onarge. This aot interferes with this prac tice and prescribes rales not pro vided by the laws of the States. It substitutes, under oertain circumstances, a performance wrongfully prevented for the performance itself. If the eleotor makes and presents his affidavit in the form and to the effeot prescribed, the inspectors are to treat this as the equivalent of the specified requirement of the State law. This is s radical change in the practice, and the statute which creates it should be explicit ia its terms. Nothing should be left to con struction if it can be avoided. The law ought not to be in such a condition that the elector may aot upon one idea of its meaning and the inspector npon an other. The eleotor, under the provis ions of the atatnte, is only reqnired to state in bis affidavit that he has been wrongfully prevented by the offioer from qualifying. There are no words of lim itation in this part of the seotion. In a case like this, if an affidavit is in the language of the statute it onght to be sufficient both for the voter and for the inspector. Laws which prohibit the do ing of things and provide a punishment for their violation shonld have no doa ble meaning. A citizen shonld not un neoessarily be placed where, by an hon est error in the construction of a penal statate, he may be subjected to a prose cution for a false oath, and an inspector of elections should pot he put in jeop ardy because he, with equal honesty, entertains an opposite opinion. If this statute limits the wrongful act which will justify the affidavit to dis crimination on account of race, Ao., ] then a oitiaen who makes an affidavit 1 that he has been wrongfully prevented < by the officer, whioh is true in the ordi- j nary sense of that term, subjects him self to indiotment and trial, if not to conviction, because it is not true that he has been prevented by such a wrongful act as the statute contemplated, and if there is no such limitation, bnt any wrongful act of exclusion will justify the affidavit and give the right to vote without the actual performance of the prerequisite, then the inspector who re jects the vote because he reads the law in its limited sense, and thinks it is con fined to a wrongful discrimination on account of race, Ac., snbjects himself to prosecution, if not to punishment, be cause be has misconstrued the law. Penal statutes ought not to be expressed in language so uncertain. If the Legis lature undertakes to define by statute a new offense and provide for its punish ment, it shonid express its will in lan guage that need not deceive the common mind. Every man shonid be able to know with certainty when he is commit ting a crime, bnt when we go beyond the third aeotion and read the fourth, we find there no words of limitation or ref erence even that can be construed as manifesting any intention to confine |te provisions to the terms of the Fifteenth Amendment. That section has for its object tiie punishment of all persona who by force, bribery, &a, hinder, de lay, Ac., any person from qualifying or voting. In view of all these faots we feel compelled to say that, in our opinion, the language of the third and fourth seotions does not confine their operation to unlawful discrimination on account of race, Ao. If Congress had the power to provide generally for the punishment of those who unlawfully interfere to pre vent the exeroise of the elective franchise without regard to suoh discrimination, the language of these seotions would be broad enough for that purpose. It remains now to oonsider whether a statute so general as this in its pro visions oan be made available for tha punishment of those who may be guilty of nnlawfnl discrimination against citi zens of the United States while exerois ing the eleotive franchise on acoonnt of their raoe, Ao. There is no attempt in the seotions now nnder consideration to provide specially for suoh an offense. If the ease is provide? for at all, it is because it comes under the general pro hibition against any wrongfnl act or unlawful obstruction in this particular. We are, therefore, direotly called upon to decide whether a penal statute, en acted by Congress, with its limited pow ers, whioh provides in general language, broad enough to cover wrongful acts without as. well as within the constitu tional jurisdiction, oan be limited by judicial construction, so as to make it operate only on that whioh Congress may rightfully prohibit and punish. For thiß purpose we must take these sections of the statute as they are. We are not able to rejeot a part whioh is unconstitutional and retain the re mainder, beoanse it is not possible to separate that whioh is unconstitutional, if there be any suoh, from that whioh is not. The proposed effeot is not to be attained by striking out or disregarding words that are in the seotion, bat by in serting those that are not now there. Each of the sections must stand as a whole, or fall altogether. The language is plain. There is no room for construc tion unless it be as to the effeot of the Constitution. The question then to be determined is whether we oan introduce w.rds of limitation into a penal statate so as to make it speeifio, when, as ex pressed, it is general only. 'lt would certainly be dangerous if the Legisla ture oould set a net large euuugli to catch all possible offenders and leave it to the Courts to step in, and say who oonld be rightfully detained and who should be set at large. This would to some extent snbstitnte the judioial for the legislative department of the Gov ernment. The Courts enforce the legis lative will, when ascertained, if within constitutional grant of power. Within its legitimate sphere Congress is su preme and beyond the oontrol of the Courts; but if it steps outside of its constitutional limitations and attempts that whioh is beyond its reaoh, the Courts are authorized to, and when called npon, in due oonrse of legal pro ceedings, must annul its euoroaohmenta upon the reserved power of States and the people. To limit this statate in the manner now asked for would be to make anew law, not to enforce an old one. This is no part of duty; we must, there fore, decide that Congress has not, as yet, provided by appropriate legislation for the punishment of the offense oharged in the indiotment, and that the Circuit Court properly sustained the demurrers and gave judgment for tha defendants. This makes it unnecessary to answer any of the other questions certified, sinoe the law whioh gives the presiding Judge the casting vote in eases of divi sion, and authorizes a judgment in ac cordance with his opinion. (Rev. Stat., sec. 650.) If we find that the judgment as rendered is oorreot we need not do more than affirm. If, however, we re verse, all questions certified, whioh may be considered in the final determination of the oase, according to the opinion we express, should be answered. The judg ment of the Cirouit Court is affirmed. Dissenting—Mr. Justioe Hunt Mr. Justioe Clifford dissented from the opinion but conourred in the judg ment. THE COURSE OF COTTON. Weakly Review of the New York market. (JVieto York Daily Bulletin .l t Sinoe our last review a few fluctua tions have taken place, but on the whole the torn has been upward and values generally are higher. In short, while the bearish feeling oannot be said to have disappeared, the bulls have gained a very deoided foothold, and the blue, disoonraging tone so long prevailing has given place to feeling of compara tive cheerfulness, with an oooasional de velopment of considerable buoyancy and animation. From abroad the advices have come to hand stronger and more buoyant, with the price again above fijd, and many operators inclined to the be lief that Liverpool has recovered from the panicky feeling and may in futnre be depended upon to show a little more stamina, especially as orders have come out for the purchase of actual ootton, and our shippers have not only manifest ed increased interest, but seldom hesi tated to negotiate npon really desirable lots at market rates. Receipts at the ports, too, have fallen off some what more freely than had been calculated upon by the sanguine believers in an extraodinary crop, and this with very unfavorably weather reports has acted as an ad ditional incentive to increase values. On the other side of the question we still find a disposition in many quarters to attribute the upward turn in the main to speculative manipnlations. Good reasons for a check to thedeoline are ad mitted and possibly the natural slight reaction after a heavy break, bnt it ia claimed that there is no reason for any deoided advanee on the present outlook, and if the upward turn is allowed to go much further it will generate an un healthy condition of affairs und possibly disaster. There is also to be found those who believe that mdre ootton re mains in the South than ourrent receipts would seem to indioate and that the high er prioes most draw this out. Fer tha present, however, the selling interest has the advantage and is using every ef fort to make amends for the adverse oir onmstanoes nnder which it has been placed for some months past. Spots have sold very well, the most enooraging feature being an increased movements on foreign aooonnt. Ship pers have exhibited a fair amount of care and fignred closely on quality and cost, but wbeD finding a parcel well suit ed to their wants were generally inolined to purchase. From spinners the call has been of abont the usual magnitude, and shown no really new features. Bay ers come in a* they want supplies, pick oat enough to carry them along through present necessities, and can seldom be ooaxed into operating further. Prices have advanoed abont fo per lb. and the tone was steady to firm throughout, but holders have as a rule kept enough stock available to satisfy the outlet presented. Gontraots have sold with freedom, and a pretty quick movement at times, and with the exception of the usual temporary ohecks, values have gradually worked up wards on all months. The stimulating influence upon wbieh the improvement was bas%a we have noted above, and the advance was aided materially by the nervous shorts, who, though affect ing to believe the stronger tone to the unwarranted, have been covering quite freely on all months. This month and next, however, have been objects of par ticular interest, and were ran np more rapidly and held stronger than the later ones. There has been a considerable amount of purchasing oq fresh invest ment and an infusion of an ontside or new element, which ia also considered an encouraging feature. It ia reported that shippers nave been purchasing free ly for April, which/ if true, must have an important influence npon the issue of notices for that month. A feature of the week is the first sales into the next crop, the opening transaction being 100 bales for November at 14e. The eloae of the week was the strongest and high est, the decidedly unfavorable weather reports, with indications of an overflow and stiff markets abroad, coupled with a more general oovering, and the deser tion of some of the leading "bears” to the "long” side, forming a good basis for improvement. The State Lunatic Asylum.— An ap plication ws made a few days since for the admission of an insane person in this oity into the State Lunatic Asylum at Milleageville. Dr. Green, the Super intendent, replied as follows to the party making the application : Deab Sib—Your fetter has been re- ceived and properly considered, bnt I greatly regret to state that it is not at present practicable to reoeive the patient in whose behalf you write. The insti tution is really dangerously crowded, and we can reoeive no patient except aa a vacancy oooprs, sad we have now on record some seventy applications. The Legislature having refused to do any thing for extending the means of accom modating them, it is not in onr power to say when any new applicant oan prob ably be received. I was obliged to re quire a patient brought here this after noon to be taken back. There are many of these unfortunates now languishing in the cennty prisons, and it is sur prising, to say the least of it, that the Legislators should have disregarded en tirely the appeals of my report in their behalf. Yours, very respectfully, Thos. F. Green, Supt., etc. London, April I.—The bark Chatham, from Wilmington, N. 0., for Rotterdam, whieh was abandoned by her crew ana a prize crew put on board by the steamer St. Louis, arrived at Falmouth to-day with the loss of bulwarks, sails, jibboom and spanker boom.