category
stringclasses
27 values
case
stringlengths
11
90
case_link
stringlengths
48
57
document
stringlengths
1.58k
697k
summary
stringlengths
153
2.35k
Voting & Elections
Minor v. Happersett
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/
U.S. Supreme Court Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874) Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI Syllabus 1. The word "citizen " is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation. 2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since. 3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had. 4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the states; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Page 88 U. S. 163 5. Neither the Constitution nor the Fourteenth Amendment made all citizens voters. 6. A provision in a state constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States" is no violation of the federal Constitution. In such, a state women have no right to vote. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains: [ Footnote 1 ] " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." And the Constitution of the State of Missouri [ Footnote 2 ] thus ordains: "Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote." Under a statute of the state, all persons wishing to vote at any election, must previously have been registered in the manner pointed out by the statute, this being a condition precedent to the exercise of the elective franchise. In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native-born free white citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri over the age of twenty-one years wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States and for a representative in Congress and for other officers at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not Page 88 U. S. 164 a "male citizen of the United States," but a woman. She thereupon sued him in one of the inferior state courts of Missouri for willfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, by which refusal she was deprived of her right to vote. The registrar demurred, and the court in which the suit was brought sustained the demurrer and gave judgment in his favor, a judgment which the supreme court affirmed. Mrs. Minor now brought the case here on error. Page 88 U. S. 165 THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court. The question is presented in this case whether, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, a woman who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri is a voter in that state notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the state which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion, we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this Court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination. It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the state in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship which the state cannot by its laws or constitution abridge. There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the Fourteenth Amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." But in our opinion it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption, the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several states, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community such as a nation is implies an Page 88 U. S. 166 association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are in this connection reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance. For convenience, it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose, the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the states upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense, it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more. To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership. Looking at the Constitution itself, we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," [ Footnote 3 ] and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several states that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, [ Footnote 4 ] and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States of America," entered into a firm league of Page 88 U. S. 167 friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. [ Footnote 5 ] Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were. Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [ Footnote 6 ] that "No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, [ Footnote 7 ]" and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their Page 88 U. S. 168 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization, Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [ Footnote 8 ] These provisions thus enacted have in substance been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or should be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States were declared to be citizens also. [ Footnote 9 ] As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [ Footnote 10 ] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or Page 88 U. S. 169 who should be married to a citizen of the United States should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [ Footnote 11 ] From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject, alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth. But if more is necessary to show that women have always been considered as citizens the same as men, abundant proof is to be found in the legislative and judicial history of the country. Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different states. Under this, it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist, the case must be dismissed. Notwithstanding this, the records of the courts are full of cases in which the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of women, and not one can be found, we think, in which objection was made on that account. Certainly none can be found in which it has been held that women could not sue or be sued in the courts of the United States. Again, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, in many of the states (and in some probably now) aliens could not inherit or transmit inheritance. There are a multitude of cases to be found in which the question has been presented whether a woman was or was not an alien, and as such capable or incapable of inheritance, but in no one has it been insisted that she was not a citizen because she was a woman. On the contrary, her right to citizenship has been in all cases assumed. The only question has been whether, in the particular case under consideration, she had availed herself of the right. In the legislative department of the government, similar Page 88 U. S. 170 proof will be found. Thus, in the preemption laws, [ Footnote 12 ] a widow, "being a citizen of the United States," is allowed to make settlement on the public lands and purchase upon the terms specified, and women, "being citizens of the United States," are permitted to avail themselves of the benefit of the homestead law. [ Footnote 13 ] Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannot be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect, men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. The Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the state, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption. If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the Constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is therefore presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters. The Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities of citizens. For that definition we must look elsewhere. In this case, we need not determine what they are, but only whether suffrage is necessarily one of them. It certainly is nowhere made so in express terms. The United States has no voters in the states of its own creation. The elective officers of the United States are all elected directly or indirectly by state voters. The members of the House of Representatives are to be chosen by the people of Page 88 U. S. 171 the states, and the electors in each state must have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. [ Footnote 14 ] Senators are to be chosen by the legislatures of the states, and necessarily the members of the legislature required to make the choice are elected by the voters of the state. [ Footnote 15 ] Each state must appoint in such manner, as the legislature thereof may direct, the electors to elect the President and Vice-President. [ Footnote 16 ] The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives are to be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof, but Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators. [ Footnote 17 ] It is not necessary to inquire whether this power of supervision thus given to Congress is sufficient to authorize any interference with the state laws prescribing the qualifications of voters, for no such interference has ever been attempted. The power of the state in this particular is certainly supreme until Congress acts. The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were necessarily made by it. Indirectly it may have had that effect because it may have increased the number of citizens entitled to suffrage under the constitution and laws of the states, but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the states and the state laws, and not directly upon the citizen. It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they existed at the time it was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was coextensive with the citizenship of the states at the time of its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every citizen must be protected. Page 88 U. S. 172 But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed. When the federal Constitution was adopted, all the states with the exception of Rhode Island and Connecticut had constitutions of their own. These two continued to act under their charters from the Crown. Upon an examination of those constitutions, we find that in no state were all citizens permitted to vote. Each state determined for itself who should have that power. Thus, in New Hampshire, "Every male inhabitant of each town and parish with town privileges and places unincorporated in the state of twenty-one years of age and upwards, excepting paupers and persons excused from paying taxes at their own request," were its voters; in Massachusetts, "every male inhabitant of twenty-one years of age and upwards having a freehold estate within the commonwealth of the annual income of three pounds or any estate of the value of sixty pounds;" in Rhode Island, "such as are admitted free of the company and society" of the colony; in Connecticut, such persons as had "maturity in years, quiet and peaceable behavior, a civil conversation, and forty shillings freehold or forty pounds personal estate," if so certified by the selectmen; in New York, "every male inhabitant of full age who shall have personally resided within one of the counties of the state for six months immediately preceding the day of election . . . if during the time aforesaid he shall have been a freeholder, possessing a freehold of the value of twenty pounds within the county, or have rented a tenement therein of the yearly value of forty shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to the state;" in New Jersey, "all inhabitants . . . of full age who are worth fifty pounds, proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided in the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election;" in Pennsylvania, "every freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the state two years next before the election, and within that time paid a state or county tax which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election;" in Page 88 U. S. 173 Delaware and Virginia, "as exercised by law at present;" in Maryland, "all freemen above twenty-one years of age having a freehold of fifty acres of land in the county in which they offer to vote and residing therein, and all freemen having property in the state above the value of thirty pounds current money, and having resided in the county in which they offer to vote one whole year next preceding the election;" in North Carolina, for senators, "all freemen of the age of twenty-one years who have been inhabitants of anyone county within the state twelve months immediately preceding the day of election and possessed of a freehold within the same county of fifty acres of land for six months next before and at the day of election," and for members of the house of commons, "all freemen of the age of twenty-one years who have been inhabitants in any one county within the state twelve months immediately preceding the day of any election, and shall have paid public taxes;" in South Carolina, "every free white man of the age of twenty-one years, being a citizen of the state and having resided therein two years previous to the day of election, and who hath a freehold of fifty acres of land, or a town lot of which he hath been legally seized and possessed at least six months before such election, or (not having such freehold or town lot) hath been a resident within the election district in which he offers to give his vote six months before said election, and hath paid a tax the preceding year of three shillings sterling towards the support of the government," and in Georgia such "citizens and inhabitants of the state as shall have attained to the age of twenty-one years and shall have paid tax for the year next preceding the election, and shall have resided six months within the county." In this condition of the law in respect to suffrage in the several states, it cannot for a moment be doubted that if it had been intended to make all citizens of the United States voters, the framers of the Constitution would not have left it to implication. So important a change in the condition of citizenship as it actually existed, if intended, would have been expressly declared. Page 88 U. S. 174 But if further proof is necessary to show that no such change was intended, it can easily be found both in and out of the Constitution. By Article IV, Section 2, it is provided that "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." If suffrage is necessarily a part of citizenship, then the citizens of each state must be entitled to vote in the several states precisely as their citizens are. This is more than asserting that they may change their residence and become citizens of the state and thus be voters. It goes to the extent of insisting that, while retaining their original citizenship, they may vote in any state. This, we think, has never been claimed. And again, by the very terms of the amendment we have been considering (the fourteenth), "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in the rebellion, or other crimes, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state." Why this if it was not in the power of the legislature to deny the right of suffrage to some male inhabitants? And if suffrage was necessarily one of the absolute rights of citizenship, why confine the operation of the limitation to male inhabitants? Women and children are, as we have seen, "persons." They are counted in the enumeration upon which the apportionment is to be made, but if they were necessarily voters because of their citizenship unless clearly excluded, why inflict the penalty for the exclusion of males alone? Clearly no such form of words would have been Page 88 U. S. 175 selected to express the idea here indicated if suffrage was the absolute right of all citizens. And still again, after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, it was deemed necessary to adopt a fifteenth, as follows: "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 servitude." The Fourteenth Amendment had already provided that no state should make or enforce any law which should abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. If suffrage was one of these privileges or immunities, why amend the Constitution to prevent its being denied on account of race &c.? Nothing is more evident than that the greater must include the less, and if all were already protected, why go through with the form of amending the Constitution to protect a part? It is true that the United States guarantees to every state a republican form of government. [ Footnote 18 ] It is also true that no state can pass a bill of attainder, [ Footnote 19 ] and that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. [ Footnote 20 ] All these several provisions of the Constitution must be construed in connection with the other parts of the instrument and in the light of the surrounding circumstances. The guaranty is of a republican form of government. No particular government is designated as republican; neither is the exact form to be guaranteed in any manner especially designated. Here, as in other parts of the instrument, we are compelled to resort elsewhere to ascertain what was intended. The guaranty necessarily implies a duty on the part of the states themselves to provide such a government. All the states had governments when the Constitution was adopted. In all, the people participated to some extent, through their representatives elected in the manner specially provided. Page 88 U. S. 176 These governments the Constitution did not change. They were accepted precisely as they were, and it is therefore to be presumed that they were such as it was the duty of the states to provide. Thus we have unmistakable evidence of what was republican in form, within the meaning of that term as employed in the Constitution. As has been seen, all the citizens of the states were not invested with the right of suffrage. In all save perhaps New Jersey, this right was only bestowed upon men, and not upon all of them. Under these circumstances, it is certainly now too late to contend that a government is not republican, within the meaning of this guaranty in the Constitution, because women are not made voters. The same may be said of the other provisions just quoted. Women were excluded from suffrage in nearly all the states by the express provision of their constitutions and laws. If that had been equivalent to a bill of attainder, certainly its abrogation would not have been left to implication. Nothing less than express language would have been employed to effect so radical a change. So also of the amendment which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, adopted as it was as early as 1791. If suffrage was intended to be included within its obligations, language better adapted to express that intent would most certainly have been employed. The right of suffrage, when granted, will be protected. He who has it can only be deprived of it by due process of law, but in order to claim protection, he must first show that he has the right. But we have already sufficiently considered the proof found upon the inside of the Constitution. That upon the outside is equally effective. The Constitution was submitted to the states for adoption in 1787, and was ratified by nine states in 1788, and finally by the thirteen original states in 1790. Vermont was the first new state admitted to the Union, and it came in under a constitution which conferred the right of suffrage only upon men of the full age of twenty-one years, having resided Page 88 U. S. 177 in the state for the space of one whole year next before the election, and who were of quiet and peaceable behavior. This was in 1791. The next year, 1792, Kentucky followed with a constitution confining the right of suffrage to free male citizens of the age of twenty-one years who had resided in the state two years or in the county in which they offered to vote one year next before the election. Then followed Tennessee, in 1796, with voters of freemen of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, possessing a freehold in the county wherein they may vote, and being inhabitants of the state or freemen being inhabitants of anyone county in the state six months immediately preceding the day of election. But we need not particularize further. No new state has ever been admitted to the Union which has conferred the right of suffrage upon women, and this has never been considered a valid objection to her admission. On the contrary, as is claimed in the argument, the right of suffrage was withdrawn from women as early as 1807 in the State of New Jersey without any attempt to obtain the interference of the United States to prevent it. Since then, the governments of the insurgent states have been reorganized under a requirement that before their representatives could be admitted to seats in Congress, they must have adopted new constitutions, republican in form. In no one of these constitutions was suffrage conferred upon women, and yet the states have all been restored to their original position as states in the Union. Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote. The same provision is to be found in the Constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas. Certainly if the courts can consider any question settled, this is one. For nearly ninety years, the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage. If Page 88 U. S. 178 uniform practice long continued can settle the construction of so important an instrument as the Constitution of the United States confessedly is, most certainly it has been done here. Our province is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be. We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having the power to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman's need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a state to withhold. Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, and that the constitutions and laws of the several states which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we Affirm the judgment. [ Footnote 1 ] See other sections, infra, p. 88 U. S. 174 . [ Footnote 2 ] Article 2, § 18. [ Footnote 3 ] Preamble, 1 Stat. at Large 10. [ Footnote 4 ] Declaration of Independence, ib. 1. [ Footnote 5 ] Articles of Confederation, § 3, 1 Stat. at Large 4. [ Footnote 6 ] Article 2, § 1. [ Footnote 7 ] Article I, § 8. [ Footnote 8 ] 1 Stat. at Large 103. [ Footnote 9 ] 10 id. 604. [ Footnote 10 ] 2 id. 293. [ Footnote 11 ] 10 Stat. at Large 604. [ Footnote 12 ] 5 Stat. at Large 455, § 10. [ Footnote 13 ] 12 id. 392. [ Footnote 14 ] Constitution, Article I, § 2. [ Footnote 15 ] Ib., Article I, § 3. [ Footnote 16 ] Ib., Article II, § 2. [ Footnote 17 ] Ib., Article I, § 4. [ Footnote 18 ] Constitution, Article IV, § 4. [ Footnote 19 ] Ib., Article I, § 10. [ Footnote 20 ] Ib., Amendment V.
In *Minor v. Happersett*, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the right to vote is not inherent in citizenship and that states have the power to restrict voting rights to men, excluding women from suffrage. The Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment as providing additional guarantees of protection for citizens but not as extending the right to vote to all citizens. This decision affirmed the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling, upholding the state constitution's provision limiting voting rights to male citizens.
Trademarks
Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/264/359/
U.S. Supreme Court Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359 (1924) Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty No.197 Argued February 18, 19, 1924 Decided April 7, 1924 264 U.S. 359 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The ownership of a registered trademark consisting of a name designating the owner's goods does not carry with it the right to prohibit a purchaser, who repacks and sells them with or without added ingredients, from using the name on his own labels to show the true relation of the trademarked product to the article he offers, provided the name be not so printed or otherwise used as to deceive the public. P. 264 U. S. 368 . 2. In this regard, no new right under the trademark can be evoked from the fact that the goods are peculiarly liable to be spoilt or adulterated. P. 264 U. S. 369 . 85 F. 501 reversed. Certiorari to a decree of the circuit court of appeals reversing a decree of the district court in a suit to enjoin alleged unlawful uses of trademarks. Page 264 U. S. 366 MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a bill in equity brought by the respondent Coty, a citizen of France, against Prestonettes, a New York corporation having its principal place of business in the Southern District of New York. It seeks to restrain alleged unlawful uses of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks, "Coty" and "L'Origan" upon toilet powders and perfumes. The defendant purchases the genuine powder, subjects it to pressure, adds a binder to give it coherence, and sells the compact in a metal case. It buys Page 264 U. S. 367 the genuine perfume in bottles and sells it in smaller bottles. We need not mention what labels it used before this suit, as the defendant is content to abide by the decree of the district court. That decree allowed the defendant to put upon the rebottled perfume "Prestonettes, Inc., not connected with Coty, states that the contents are Coty's [giving the name of the article] independently rebottled in New York," every word to be in letters of the same size, color, type, and general distinctiveness. It allowed the defendant to make compacts from the genuine loose powder of the plaintiff and to sell them with this label on the container: "Prestonettes, Inc., not connected with Coty, states that the compact of face powder herein was independently compounded by it from Coty's [giving the name] loose powder and its own binder. Loose powder -- percent, Binder -- percent.," every word to be in letters of the same size, color, type and general distinctiveness. The circuit court of appeals, considering the very delicate and volatile nature of the perfume, its easy deterioration, and the opportunities for adulteration, issued an absolute preliminary injunction against the use of the above marks except on the original packages as marked and sold by the plaintiff, thinking that the defendant could not put upon the plaintiff the burden of keeping a constant watch. 285 F. 501. Certiorari granted, 260 U.S. 720. The bill does not charge the defendant with adulterating or otherwise deteriorating the plaintiff's product except that it intimates, rather than alleges, metal containers to be bad, and the circuit court of appeals stated that there were no controverted questions of fact, but that the issue was simply one of law. It seemingly assumed that the defendant handled the plaintiff's product without in any way injuring its qualities, and made its decree upon that assumption. The decree seems to us to have gone too far. Page 264 U. S. 368 The defendant, of course, by virtue of its ownership, had a right to compound or change what it bought, to divide either the original or the modified product, and to sell it so divided. The plaintiff could not prevent or complain of its stating the nature of the component parts and the source from which they were derived if it did not use the trademark in doing so. For instance, the defendant could state that a certain percentage of its compound was made at a certain place in Paris, however well known as the plaintiff's factory that place might be. If the compound was worse than the constituent, it might be a misfortune to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff would have no cause of action, as the defendant was exercising the rights of ownership, and only telling the truth. The existence of a trademark would have no bearing on the question. Then what new rights does the trademark confer? It does not confer a right to prohibit the use of the word or words. It is not a copyright. The argument drawn from the language of the Trade-Mark Act does not seem to us to need discussion. A trademark only gives the right to prohibit the use of it so far as to protect the owner's goodwill against the sale of another's product as his. United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U. S. 90 . There is nothing to the contrary in A. Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, 260 U. S. 689 . There, the trademark protected indicated that the goods came from the plaintiff in the United States, although not made by it, and therefore could not be put upon other goods of the same make coming from abroad. When the mark is used in a way that does not deceive the public, we see no such sanctity in the word as to prevent its being used to tell the truth. It is not taboo. Canal Co. v. Clark , 13 Wall. 311, 80 U. S. 327 . If the name Coty were allowed to be printed in different letters from the rest of the inscription dictated by the district court, a casual purchaser might look no Page 264 U. S. 369 further, and might be deceived. But when it in no way stands out from the statements of facts that unquestionably the defendant has a right to communicate in some form, we see no reason why it should not be used collaterally not to indicate the goods, but to say that the trademarked product is a constituent in the article now offered as new and changed. As a general proposition, there can be no doubt that the word might be so used. If a man bought a barrel of a certain flour, or a demijohn of Old Crow whisky, he certainly could sell the flour in smaller packages or, in former days, could have sold the whisky in bottles, and tell what it was, if he stated that he did the dividing up or the bottling. And this would not be because of a license implied from the special facts, but on the general ground that we have stated. It seems to us that no new right can be evoked from the fact that the perfume or powder is delicate, and likely to be spoiled, or from the omnipresent possibility of fraud. If the defendant's rebottling the plaintiff's perfume deteriorates it and the public is adequately informed who does the rebottling, the public, with or without the plaintiff's assistance, is likely to find it out. And so of the powder in its new form. This is not a suit for unfair competition. It stands upon the plaintiff's rights as owner of a trademark registered under the Act of Congress. The question, therefore, is not how far the court would go in aid of a plaintiff who showed ground for suspecting the defendant of making a dishonest use of his opportunities, but is whether the plaintiff has the naked right alleged to prohibit the defendant from making even a collateral reference to the plaintiff's mark. We are of opinion that the decree of the circuit court of appeals must be reversed, and that that of the district court must stand. Decree reversed. MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS dissents.
In Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty (1924), the US Supreme Court ruled that the owner of a registered trademark cannot prohibit a purchaser from using the trademarked name on their own labels, provided they are not deceiving the public. The Court held that a trademark does not give the owner the right to control how others use the mark to communicate truthful information about the product. In this case, Prestonettes was allowed to repackage and sell Coty's perfume and powder with labels stating that the products were independently rebottled or compounded by Prestonettes, as long as the text was uniform in size, color, type, and distinctiveness. This decision set a precedent for trademark usage and resale rights.
Voting & Elections
U.S. v. Reese
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/214/
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875) United States v. Reese 92 U.S. 214 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus 1. Rights and immunities created by or dependent upon the Constitution of the United States can be protected by Congress. The form and manner of that protection may be such as Congress, in the legitimate exercise of its legislative discretion, shall provide, and may be varied to meet the necessities of a particular right. 2. The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage, but it invests citizens of the United States with the right of Page 92 U. S. 215 exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and empowers Congress to enforce that right by "appropriate legislation." 3. The power of Congress to legislate at all upon the subject of voting at state elections rests upon this amendment, and can be exercised by providing a punishment only when the wrongful refusal to receive the vote of a qualified elector at such elections is because of his race, color, or previous condition of servitude. 4. The third and fourth sections of the Act of May 31, 1570, 16 Stat. 140, not being confined in their operation to unlawful discrimination on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, are beyond the limit of the Fifteenth Amendment and unauthorized. 5. As these sections are in general language broad enough to cover wrongful acts without as well as within the constitutional jurisdiction, and cannot be limited by judicial construction so as to make them operate only on that which Congress may rightfully prohibit and punish, held that Congress has not provided by "appropriate legislation" for the punishment of an inspector of a municipal election for refusing to receive and count at such election the vote of a citizen of the United States of African descent. 6. Since the passage of the act which gives the presiding judge the casting vote in cases of division and authorizes a judgment in accordance with his opinion, Rev.Stat., sec. 650, this Court, if it finds that the judgment as rendered is correct, need do no more than affirm it. If, however, that judgment is reversed, all questions certified, which are considered in the final determination of the case here, should be answered. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court. This case comes hare by reason of a division of opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court in the District of Kentucky. It presents an indictment containing four counts, under secs. 3 and 4 of the Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 140, against two of the inspectors of a municipal election in the State of Kentucky for refusing to receive and count at such election the vote of William Garner, a citizen of the United States of African descent. All the questions presented by the certificate of division arose upon general demurrers to the several counts of the indictment. Page 92 U. S. 216 In this Court, the United States abandons the first and third counts and expressly waives the consideration of all claims not arising out of the enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution. After this concession, the principal question left for consideration is whether the act under which the indictment is found can be made effective for the punishment of inspectors of elections who refuse to receive and count the votes of citizens of the United States, having all the qualifications of voters, because of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude. If Congress has not declared an act done within a state to be a crime against the United States, the courts have no power to treat it as such. United States v. Hudson , 7 Cranch 32. It is not claimed that there is any statute which can reach this case unless it be the one in question. Looking, then, to this statute, we find that its first section provides that all citizens of the United States who are or shall be otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election &c., shall be entitled and allowed to vote thereat without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, any constitution &c., of the state to the contrary notwithstanding. This simply declares a right, without providing a punishment for its violation. The second section provides for the punishment of any officer charged with the duty of furnishing to citizens an opportunity to perform any act, which, by the constitution or laws of any state, is made a prerequisite or qualification of voting, who shall omit to give all citizens of the United States the same and equal opportunity to perform such prerequisite, and become qualified on account of the race, color, or previous condition of servitude, of the applicant. This does not apply to or include the inspectors of an election whose only duty it is to receive and count the votes of citizens, designated by law as voters, who have already become qualified to vote at the election. The third section is to the effect that whenever, by or under the constitution or laws of any state &c., any act is or shall be required to be done by any citizen as a prerequisite to qualify or entitle him to vote, the offer of such citizen to perform the act required to be done "as aforesaid" shall, if it Page 92 U. S. 217 fail to be carried into execution by reason of the wrongful act or omission "aforesaid" of the person or officer charged with the duty of receiving or permitting such performance, or offer to perform, or acting thereon, be deemed and held as a performance in law of such act; and the person so offering 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 fact performed such act, and any judge, inspector, or other officer of election whose duty it is to receive, count &c., or give effect to the vote of any such citizen, who shall wrongfully refuse or omit to receive, count &c., the vote of such citizen, upon the presentation by him of his affidavit stating such offer, and the time and place thereof, and the name of the person or officer whose duty it was to act thereon, and that he was wrongfully prevented by such person or officer from performing such act, shall, for every such offense, forfeit and pay, &c. The fourth section provides for the punishment of any person who shall, by force, bribery, threats, intimidation, or other unlawful means, hinder, delay &c., or shall combine 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 second count in the indictment is based upon the fourth section of this act, and the fourth upon the third section. Rights and immunities created by or dependant upon the Constitution of the United States can be protected by Congress. The form and the manner of the protection may be such as Congress, in the legitimate exercise of its legislative discretion, shall provide. These may be varied to meet the necessities of the particular right to be protected. The Fifteenth Amendment does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone. It prevents the states, or the United States, however, from giving preference, in this particular, to one citizen of the United States over another on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Before its adoption, this could be done. It was as much within the power of a state to exclude citizens of the United States from voting on account of race &c., as it was on account of age, property, Page 92 U. S. 218 or education. Now it is not. If citizens of one race having certain qualifications are permitted by law to vote, those of another having the same qualifications must be. Previous to this amendment, there was no constitutional guaranty against this discrimination; now there is. It follows that the amendment has invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right which is within the protecting power of Congress. That right is exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This, under the express provisions of the second section of the amendment, Congress may enforce by "appropriate legislation." This leads us to inquire whether the act now under consideration is "appropriate legislation" 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 art. 1, sec. 4, of the Constitution, in respect 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 penalties for every wrongful refusal to receive the vote of a qualified elector at state elections. It is only when the wrongful refusal at such an election is because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude that Congress can interfere and provide for its punishment. If, therefore, the third and fourth sections of the act are beyond that limit, they are unauthorized. The third section does not in express terms limit the offense of an inspector of elections, for which the punishment is provided, to a wrongful discrimination on account of race, &c. This is conceded, but it is urged that when this section is construed with those which precede it and to which, as is claimed, it refers, it is so limited. The argument is that the only wrongful act on the part of the officer whose duty it is to receive or permit the requisite qualification, which can dispense with actual qualification under the state laws, and substitute the prescribed affidavit therefor, is that mentioned and prohibited in sec. 2 -- to-wit, discrimination on account of race, &c., and that consequently sec. 3 is confined in its operation to the same wrongful discrimination. Page 92 U. S. 219 This is a penal statute, and must be construed strictly; not so strictly, indeed, as to defeat the clear intention of Congress, but the words employed must be understood in the sense they were obviously used. United States v. Wiltberger , 5 Wheat. 76, 85 [argument of counsel -- omitted]. If, taking the whole statute together, it is apparent that it was not the intention of Congress thus to limit the operation of the act, we cannot give it that effect. The statute contemplates a most important change in the election laws. Previous to its adoption, the states, as a general rule, regulated in their own way all the details of all elections. They prescribed the qualifications of voters and the manner in which those offering to vote at an election should make known their qualifications to the officers in charge. This act interferes with this practice, and prescribes rules not provided by the laws of the states. It substitutes, under certain circumstances, performance wrongfully prevented for performance itself. If the elector makes and presents his affidavit in the form and to the effect prescribed, the inspectors are to treat this as the equivalent of the specified requirement of the state law. This is a radical change in the practice, and the statute which creates it should be explicit in its terms. Nothing should be left to construction if it can be avoided. The law ought not to be in such a condition that the elector may act upon one idea of its meaning and the inspector upon another. The elector, under the provisions of the statute, is only required to state in his affidavit that he has been wrongfully prevented by the officer from qualifying. There are no words of limitation in this part of the section. In a case like this, if an affidavit is in the language of the statute, it ought to be sufficient both for the voter and the inspector. Laws which prohibit the doing of things and provide a punishment for their violation should have no double meaning. A citizen should not unnecessarily be placed where, by an honest error in the construction of a penal statute, he may be subjected to a prosecution for a false oath, and an inspector of elections should not be put in jeopardy because he, with equal honesty, entertains an opposite opinion. If this statute limits the wrongful act which will justify the affidavit to discrimination on account of race &c., then a citizen who makes an affidavit that he has been Page 92 U. S. 220 wrongfully prevented by the officer, which is true in the ordinary sense of that term, subjects himself to indictment 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, but 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 rejects the vote because he reads the law in its limited sense, and thinks it is confined to a wrongful discrimination on account of race &c., subjects himself to prosecution, if not to punishment, because he has misconstrued the law. Penal statutes ought not to be expressed in language so uncertain. If the legislature undertakes to define by statute a new offense and provide for its punishment, it should express its will in language that need not deceive the common mind. Every man should be able to know with certainty when he is committing a crime. But when we go beyond the third section and read the fourth, we find there no words of limitation, or reference even, that can be construed as manifesting any intention to confine its provisions to the terms of the Fifteenth Amendment. That section has for its object the punishment of all persons who, by force, bribery &c., hinder, delay &c., any person from qualifying or voting. In view of all these facts, we feel compelled to say that in our opinion, the language of the third and fourth sections does not confine their operation to unlawful discriminations on account of race, &c. If Congress had the power to provide generally for the punishment of those who unlawfully interfere to prevent the exercise of the elective franchise without regard to such discrimination, the language of these sections would be broad enough for that purpose. It remains now to consider whether a statute, so general as this in its provisions, can be made available for the punishment of those who may be guilty of unlawful discrimination against citizens of the United States, while exercising the elective franchise, on account of their race, &c. There is no attempt in the sections now under consideration to provide specifically for such an offense. If the case is provided for at all, it is because it comes under the general prohibition Page 92 U. S. 221 against any wrongful act or unlawful obstruction in this particular. We are therefore directly called upon to decide whether a penal statute enacted by Congress, with its limited powers, which is in general language broad enough to cover wrongful acts without as well as within the constitutional jurisdiction, can be limited by judicial construction so as to make it operate only on that which Congress may rightfully prohibit and punish. For this purpose, we must take these sections of the statute as they are. We are not able to reject a part which is unconstitutional and retain the remainder, because it is not possible to separate that which is unconstitutional, if there be any such, from that which is not. The proposed effect is not to be attained by striking out or disregarding words that are in the section, but by inserting 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 construction unless it be as to the effect of the Constitution. The question, then, to be determined is whether we can introduce words of limitation into a penal statute so as to make it specific when, as expressed, it is general only. It would certainly be dangerous if the legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained, and who should be set at large. This would to some extent substitute the judicial for the legislative department of the government. The courts enforce the legislative will when ascertained, if within the constitutional grant of power. Within its legitimate sphere, Congress is supreme and beyond the control of the courts; but if it steps outside of its constitutional limitations and attempts that which is beyond its reach, the courts are authorized to, and when called upon in due course of legal proceedings must, annul its encroachments upon the reserved power of the states and the people. To limit this statute in the manner now asked for would be to make a new law, not to enforce an old one. This is no part of our duty. We must therefore decide that Congress has not as yet provided by "appropriate legislation" for the punishment of the offense charged in the indictment, and that the circuit court Page 92 U. S. 222 properly sustained the demurrers and gave judgment for the defendants. This makes it unnecessary to answer any of the other questions certified. Since the law which gives the presiding judge the casting vote in cases of division, and authorizes a judgment in accordance with his opinion, Rev.Stat., sec. 650, if we find that the judgment as rendered is correct, we need not do more than affirm. If, however, we reverse, all questions certified, which may be considered in the final determination of the case according to the opinion we express, should be answered. Judgment affirmed. MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD and MR. JUSTICE HUNT dissenting. MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD: I concur that the indictment is bad, but for reasons widely different from those assigned by the Court. States, as well as the United States, are prohibited by the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution from denying or abridging the right of citizens of the United States to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and power is vested in Congress by the second article of that amendment to enforce that prohibition "by appropriate legislation." Since the adoption of that amendment, Congress has legislated upon the subject, and, by the first section of the Enforcement Act, it is provided that citizens of the United States, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, shall, if otherwise qualified to vote in state, territorial, or municipal elections, be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any state or territory or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding. Beyond doubt that section forbids all discrimination between white citizens and citizens of color in respect to their right to vote; but the section does not provide that the person or officer making such discrimination shall be guilty of any offense, nor does it prescribe that the person or officer guilty of making such discrimination shall be subject to any fine, penalty, or Page 92 U. S. 223 punishment whatever. None of the counts of the indictment in this case, however, is framed under that section; nor will it be necessary to give it any further consideration except so far as it may aid in the construction of the other sections of the act. 16 Stat. 140. Sec. 2 of the act will deserve more examination, as it assumes that certain acts are or may be required to be done by or under the authority of the constitution or laws of certain states, or the laws of certain territories, as a prerequisite or qualification for voting, and that certain persons or officers are or may be, by such constitution or laws, charged with the performance of duties in furnishing to such citizens an opportunity to perform such prerequisites to become qualified to vote, and provides that it shall be the duty of every such person or officer to give all such citizens, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, the same and equal opportunity to perform such prerequisites to become qualified to vote. Equal opportunity is required by that section to be given to all such citizens, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, to perform the described prerequisite, and the further provision of the same section is that if any such person or officer charged with the performance of the described duties shall refuse or knowingly omit to give full effect to the requirements of that section, he shall for every such offense forfeit and pay $500 to the person aggrieved, and also be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and punished as therein provided. Other sections applicable to the subject are contained in the Enforcement Act, to which reference will hereafter be made. 16 id. 141. 1. Four counts are exhibited in the indictment against the defendants, and the record shows that the defendants filed a demurrer to each of the counts, which was joined in behalf of the United States. Two of the counts -- to-wit, the first and the third -- having been abandoned at the argument, the examination will be confined to the second and the fourth. By the record, it also appears that the defendants, together with one William Farnaugh, on the 30th of January, 1873, were the lawful inspectors of a municipal election held on that day in the City of Lexington, in the State of Kentucky, pursuant to Page 92 U. S. 224 the constitution and laws of that state, and that they, as such inspectors, were then and there charged by law with the duty of receiving, counting, certifying, registering, reporting, and giving effect to the vote of all citizens qualified to vote at said election in Ward 3 of the city, and the accusation set forth in the second count of the indictment is that one William Garner, at said municipal election, offered to the said inspectors at the polls of said election in said Ward 3 to vote for members of the said city council, the said poll being then and there the lawful and proper voting place and precinct of the said William Garner, who was then and there a free male citizen of the United States and of the state, of African descent and having then and there resided in said state more than two years, and in said city more than one year, next preceding said election, and having been a resident of said voting precinct and ward in which he offered to vote more than sixty days immediately prior to said election, and being then and there, at the time of such offer to vote, qualified and entitled, as alleged, by the laws of the state, to vote at said election. Offer in due form to vote at the said election having been made, as alleged, by the said William Garner, the charge is that the said William Farnaugh consented to receive, count, register, and give effect to the vote of the party offering the same; but that the defendants, constituting the majority of the inspectors at the election, and as such having the power to receive or reject all votes offered at said poll, did then and there, when the said party offered to vote, unlawfully agree and confer with each other that they, as such inspectors, would not take, receive, certify, register, report, or give effect to the vote of any voters of African descent offered at said election unless the voter so offering to vote, besides being otherwise qualified to vote, had paid to said city the capitation tax of one dollar and fifty cents for the preceding year, on or before the 15th of January prior to the day of the election, which said agreement, the pleader alleges, was then and there made with intent thereby to hinder, prevent, and obstruct all voters of African descent on account of their race and color, though lawfully entitled to vote at said election, from so voting. Taken separately, that allegation would afford some support to the Page 92 U. S. 225 theory of the United States, but it must be considered in connection with the allegation which immediately follows it in the same count, where it is alleged as follows: that the defendants, in pursuance of said unlawful agreement, did then and there, at the election aforesaid, wrongfully and illegally require and demand of said party, when he offered to vote as aforesaid, that he should, as a prerequisite and qualification to his voting at said election, produce evidence of his having paid to said city or its proper officers the said capitation tax of one dollar and fifty cents for the year preceding, on or before the 15th of January preceding the day of said election, and the averment is to the effect that the party offering his vote then and there refused to comply with that illegal requirement and demand, or to produce the evidence so demanded and required. Offenses created by statute, as well as offenses created at common law, with rare exceptions, consist of more than one ingredient, and in some cases of many, and the rule is universal that every ingredient of which the offense is composed must be accurately and clearly alleged in the indictment or the indictment will be bad on demurrer, or it may be quashed on motion, or the judgment may be arrested before sentence, or be reversed on a writ of error. United States v. Cook , 17 Wall. 174. Matters well pleaded, it is true, are admitted by the demurrer; but it is equally true that every ingredient of the offense must be accurately and clearly described and that no indictment is sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly describe all the ingredients of which the offense is composed. Citizens of the United States, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, if otherwise qualified to vote at a state, territorial, or municipal election, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at such an election, even though the constitution, laws, customs, usages, or regulations of the state or territory do not allow, or even prohibit, such voter from exercising that right. 16 Stat. 140, sec. 1. Evidently the purpose of that section is to place the male citizen of color, as an elector, on the same footing with the white male citizen. Nothing else was intended by that provision, Page 92 U. S. 226 as is evident from the fact that it does not profess to enlarge or vary the prior existing right of white male citizens in any respect whatever. Conclusive support to that theory is also derived from the second section of the same act, which was obviously passed to enforce obedience to the rule forbidding discrimination between colored male citizens and white male citizens in respect to their right to vote at such elections. By the charter of the City of Lexington, it is provided that a tax shall be levied on each free male inhabitant of twenty-one years of age and upwards, except paupers, inhabiting said city, at a ratio not exceeding one dollar and fifty cents each. Sess.Laws 1867, p. 441. Such citizens, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, in order that they may be entitled to vote at any such election, must be free male citizens "over twenty-one years of age, have been a resident of the city at least six months, and of the ward in which he resides at least sixty days, prior to the day of the election, and have paid the capitation tax assessed by the city on or before the 15th of January preceding the day of election." 2 Sess.Laws 1870, p. 71. White male citizens, not possessing the qualifications to vote required by law, find no guaranty of the right to exercise that privilege by the first section of the Enforcement Act; but the mandate of the section is explicit and imperative, that all citizens, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, if otherwise qualified to vote at any state, territorial, or municipal election, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, even though forbidden so to do, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, by the constitution of the state, or by the laws, custom, usage, or regulation of the state or territory, where the election is held. Disability to vote of every kind, arising from race, color, or previous condition of servitude, is declared by the first section of that act to be removed from the colored male citizen; but unless otherwise qualified by law to vote at such an election, he is no more entitled to enjoy that privilege than a white male citizen who does not possess the qualifications required by law to constitute him a legal voter at such an election. Page 92 U. S. 227 Legal disability to vote at any such election, arising from race, color, or previous condition of servitude, is removed by the Fifteenth Amendment, as affirmed in the first section of the Enforcement Act; but the Congress knew full well that cases would arise where the want of other qualifications, if not removed, might prevent the colored citizen from exercising the right of suffrage at such an election, and the intent and purpose of the second section of the act are to furnish to all citizens an opportunity to remove every such other disability to enable them to become qualified to exercise that right, and to punish persons and officers charged with any duty in that regard who unlawfully and wrongfully refuse or willfully omit to cooperate to that end. Hence it is provided that where any act is or shall be required to be done as a prerequisite or qualification for voting, and persons or officers are charged in the manner stated with the performance of duties in furnishing to citizens an opportunity to perform such prerequisite or to become qualified to vote, it shall be the duty of every such person and officer to give all citizens, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, the same and equal opportunity to perform such prerequisite, and to become qualified to vote. Persons or officers who wrongfully refuse or knowingly omit to perform the duty with which they are charged by that clause of the second section of the Enforcement Act commit the offense defined by that section, and incur the penalty, and subject themselves to the punishment, prescribed for that offense. Enough appears in the second court of the indictment to show beyond all question that it cannot be sustained under the second section of the Enforcement Act, as the count expressly alleges that the defendants as such inspectors, at the time the complaining party offered his vote, refused to receive and count the same because he did not produce evidence that he had paid to the city the capitation tax of one dollar and fifty cents assessed against him for the preceding year, which payment, it appears by the law of the state, is a prerequisite and necessary qualification to enable any citizen to vote at that election, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and the express allegation of the count is that the party offering his vote then and there refused to comply with that prerequisite, Page 92 U. S. 228 and then and there demanded that his vote should be received and counted without his complying with that prerequisite. Argument to show that such allegations are insufficient to constitute the offense defined in the second section of the Enforcement Act or any other section of that act is quite unnecessary, as it appears in the very terms of the allegations that the party offering his vote was not, irrespective of his race, color, or previous condition of servitude, a qualified voter at such an election by the law of the state where the election was held. Persons within the category described in the first section of the Enforcement Act, of whom it is enacted that they shall be entitled and allowed to vote at such an election, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, are citizens of the United States otherwise qualified to vote at the election pending, and inasmuch as it is not alleged in the count that the party offering his vote in this case was otherwise qualified by law to vote at the time he offered his vote, and inasmuch as no excuse is pleaded for not producing evidence to establish that prerequisite of qualification, it is clear that the supposed offense is not set forth with sufficient certainty to justify a conviction and sentence of the accused. 2. Defects also exist in the fourth count, but it becomes necessary, before considering the questions which those defects present, to examine with care the third section of the Enforcement Act. Sec. 3 of that act differs in some respects from the second section -- as, for example, sec. 3 provides that whenever under the constitution and laws of a state or the laws of a territory any act is or shall be required to be done by any such citizen as a prerequisite to qualify or entitle him to vote, the offer of any such citizen to perform the act required to be done as aforesaid shall, if it fail to be carried into execution by reason of the wrongful act or omission aforesaid of the person or officer charged with the duty of receiving or permitting such performance or offer to perform, be deemed and held as a performance in law of such act, and the person so offering 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 fact performed the said act. By that clause of the section, it is enacted that the offer of the party interested to Page 92 U. S. 229 perform the prerequisite act to qualify or entitle him to vote shall, if it fail for the reason specified, have the same effect as the actual performance of the prerequisite act would have; and the further provision is that any judge, inspector, or other officer of election, whose duty it is or shall be to receive, count, certify, register, report, or give effect to the vote of such citizen, upon the presentation by him of his affidavit, stating such offer and the time and place thereof, and the name of the officer or person whose duty it was to act thereon, and that he was wrongfully prevented by such person or officer from performing such act, shall for every such offense forfeit and pay the sum of $500 dollars to the person aggrieved, and also be guilty of a misdemeanor. Payment of the capitation tax on or before the 15th of January preceding the day of the election is beyond all doubt one of the prerequisite acts, if not the only one, referred to in that part of the section, and it is equally clear that the introductory clause of the section is wholly inapplicable to a case where the citizen, claiming the right to vote at such an election, has actually paid the capitation tax as required by the election law of the state. Voters who have seasonably paid the tax are in no need of any opportunity to perform such a prerequisite to qualify them to vote; but the third section of the act was passed to provide for a class of citizens who had not paid the tax, and who had offered to pay it, and the offer had failed to be carried into execution by reason of the wrongful act or omission of the person or officer charged with the duty of receiving or permitting the performance of such prerequisite. Qualified voters by the law of the state are male citizens over twenty-one years of age who have been residents of the city at least six months and of the ward in which they reside at least sixty days, immediately prior to the day of the election, and who have paid the capitation tax assessed by the city on or before the fifteenth day of January preceding the day of the election. Obviously the payment of the capitation tax on or before the time mentioned is a prerequisite to qualify the citizen to vote, and the purpose of the second section is to secure to the citizen an opportunity to perform that prerequisite and to punish the persons and officers charged with the duty of Page 92 U. S. 230 furnishing the citizen with such an opportunity to perform such prerequisite in case such person or officer refuses or knowingly omits to do his duty in that regard. Grant that, still it is clear that the punishment of the offender would not retroact and give effect to the right of the citizen to vote, nor secure to the public the right to have his vote received, counted, registered, reported, and made effectual at that election. 3. Injustice of the kind, it was foreseen, might be done, and to remedy that difficulty the third section was passed, the purpose of which is to provide that the offer of any such citizen to perform such prerequisite, if the offer fails to be carried into execution by reason of the wrongful act or omission of the person or officer charged with the duty of receiving or permitting such performance, shall be deemed and held as a performance in law of such act and prerequisite; and the person so offering to perform such prerequisite, and so failing by reason of the wrongful act or omission of the person or officer charged with such duty, if otherwise qualified, shall be entitled to vote in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had, in fact, performed such prerequisite act. Nothing short of the performance of the prerequisite act will entitle any citizen to vote at any such election in that state if the opportunity to perform the prerequisite is furnished as required by the Act of Congress, but if those whose duty it is to furnish the opportunity to perform the act refuse or omit so to do, then the offer to perform such prerequisite act, if the offer fails to be carried into execution by the wrongful act or omission of those whose duty it is to receive and permit the performance of the prerequisite act, shall have the same effect in law as the actual performance. Such an offer to perform can have the same effect in law as actual performance only in case where it fails to be carried into execution by reason of the wrongful act or omission of the person or officer charged with the duty of receiving or permitting such performance, from which it follows that the offer must be made in such terms and under such circumstances that if it should be received and carried into execution, it would constitute a legal and complete performance of the prerequisite act. What the law of the state requires in that regard is that Page 92 U. S. 231 the citizen offering to vote at such an election should have paid the capitation tax assessed by the city, which in this case was one dollar and fifty cents, on or before the 15th of January preceding the day of election. Unless the offer is made in such terms and under such circumstances that if it is accepted and carried into execution, it would constitute a legal and complete performance of the prerequisite act, the person or officer who refused or omitted to carry the offer into execution would not incur the penalty nor be guilty of the offense defined by that section of the act, for it could not be properly alleged that it failed to be carried into effect by the wrongful act or omission of the person or officer charged with the duty of receiving and permitting such performance. Viewed in the light of these suggestions, it must be that the offer contemplated by the third section of the act is an offer made in such terms and under such circumstances that if it be accepted and carried into execution by the person or officer to whom it is made, it will constitute a complete performance of the prerequisite and show that the party making the offer, if otherwise qualified, is entitled to vote at the election. Evidence is entirely wanting to show that the authors of the Enforcement Act ever intended to abrogate any state election law except so far as it denies or abridges the right of the citizen to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Every discrimination on that account is forbidden by the Fifteenth Amendment, and the first section of the act under consideration provides, as before remarked, that "all citizens, otherwise qualified to vote, . . . shall be entitled and allowed to vote, . . . without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, any constitution, law" &c., to the contrary notwithstanding. State election laws creating such discriminations are superseded in that regard by the Fifteenth Amendment, but the Enforcement Act furnishes no ground to infer that the lawmakers intended to annul the state election laws in any other respect whatever. Had Congress intended by the third section of that act to abrogate the election law of the state creating the prerequisite in question, it is quite clear that the second section would have been wholly unnecessary, as it would be a useless regulation to provide the Page 92 U. S. 232 means to enable citizens to comply with a prerequisite which is abrogated and treated as null by the succeeding section. Statutes should be interpreted, if practicable, so as to avoid any repugnancy between the different parts of the same and to give a sensible and intelligent effect to every one of their provisions; nor is it ever to be presumed that any part of a statute is supererogatory or without meaning. Potter's Dwarris 145. Difficulties of the kind are all avoided if it be held that the second section was enacted to afford citizens an opportunity to perform the prerequisite act to qualify themselves to vote, and to punish the person or officer who refuses or knowingly omits to perform his duty in furnishing them with that opportunity, and that the intent and purpose of the third section are to protect such citizens from the consequences of the wrongful refusal or willful omission of such person or officer to receive and give effect to the actual offer of such citizen to perform such prerequisite, if made in terms and under such circumstances that the offer, if accepted and carried into execution, would constitute an actual and complete performance of the act made a prerequisite to the right of voting by the state law. Apply these suggestions to the fourth count of the indictment and it is clear that the allegations in that regard are insufficient to describe the offense defined by the third section of the Enforcement Act. 4. Beyond all doubt, the general rule is that in an indictment for an offense created by statute, it is sufficient to describe the offense in the words of the statute, and it is safe to admit that that general rule is supported by many decided cases of the highest authority; but it is equally certain that exceptions exist to the rule, which are as well established as the rule itself, most of which result from another rule of criminal pleading, which, in framing indictments founded upon statutes, is paramount to all others and is one of universal application -- that every ingredient of the offense must be accurately and clearly expressed, or in other words that the indictment must contain an allegation of every fact which is legally essential to the punishment to be inflicted. United States v. Cook , 17 Wall. 174. Speaking of that principle, Mr. Bishop says it pervades the Page 92 U. S. 233 entire system of the adjudged law of criminal procedure, as appears by all the cases; that wherever we move in that department of our jurisprudence, we come in contact with it; and that we can no more escape from it than from the atmosphere which surrounds us. 1 Bishop, Cr.Pro., 2d ed., sec. 81; Archbold's Crim.Plead., 15th ed., 54; 1 Stark Crim.Plead., 236; 1 Am.Cr.Law, 6th rev. ed., sec. 364; Steel v. Smith, 1 Barn. & Ald. 99. Examples of the kind, where it has been held that exceptions exist to the rule that it is sufficient in an indictment founded upon a statute to follow the words of the statute, are very numerous and show that many of the exceptions have become as extensively recognized and are as firmly settled as any rule of pleading in the criminal law. Moreover, says Mr. Bishop, there must be such an averment of facts as shows prima facie guilt in the defendant, and if, supposing all the facts set out to be true, there is, because of the possible nonexistence of some fact not mentioned, room to escape from the prima facie conclusion of guilt, the indictment is insufficient, which is the exact case before the court. 1 Bishop, Cr.Pro., 2d ed., sec. 325. It is plain, says the same learned author, that if, after a full expression has been given to the statutory terms, any of the other rules relating to the indictment are left uncomplied with, the indictment is still insufficient. To it must be added what will conform also to the other rules. Consequently the general doctrine that the indictment is sufficient if it follows the words of the statute creating and defining the offense, is subject to exceptions, requiring the allegation to be expanded beyond the prohibiting terms. 1 id., sec. 623. In general, says Marshall, C.J., it is sufficient in a libel (being a libel of information) to charge the offense in the very words which direct the forfeiture; but the proposition is not, we think, universally true. If the words which describe the subject of the law are general, . . . we think the charge in the libel ought to conform to the true sense and meaning of those words as used by the legislature. The Mary Ann , 8 Wheat. 389. Similar views are expressed by this Court in United States v. Page 92 U. S. 234 Gooding, 12 Wheat. 474, in which the opinion was given by Mr. Justice Story. Having first stated the general rule that it is sufficient certainty in an indictment to allege the offense in the very terms of the Statute, he proceeds to remark, "We say in general for there are doubtless cases where more particularity is required, either from the obvious intention of the legislature or from the application of known principles of law. Known principles of law require more particularity in this case, in order that all the ingredients of the offense may be accurately and clearly alleged, and it is equally clear that the intention of the legislature also requires the same thing, as it is obvious that the mere statement of the party that he offered to perform the prerequisite was never intended to be made equivalent to performance unless such statement was accompanied by an offer to pay the tax, and under circumstances which shown that he was ready and able to make the payment. Authorities are not necessary to prove that an indictment upon a statute must state all such facts and circumstances as constitute the statute offense, so as to bring the party indicted precisely within the provisions of the statute defining the offense." Statutes are often framed, says Colby, to meet the relations of parties to each other, to prevent frauds by the one upon the other, and in framing such statutes, the language used is often elliptical, leaving some of the circumstances expressive of the relations of the parties to each other to be supplied by intendment or construction. In all such cases, the facts and circumstances constituting such relation must be alleged in the indictment, though not expressed in the words of the statute. 2 Colby, Cr.Law, 114; People v. Wibur, 4 Park Cr.Cas. 21; Com. v. Cook, 18 B.Monr. 149; Pearce v. State, 1 Sneed 63; People v. Stone, 9 Wend. 191; Whiting v. State, 14 Conn. 487; Anthony v. State, 29 Ala. 27; 1 Am.Cr.Law, 6th rev. ed., sec. 364, note d , and cases cited. Like the preceding counts, the preliminary allegations of the fourth count are without objection; and the jury proceed to present that the party offering to vote, having then and there all the qualifications, as to age, citizenship, and residence, required by the state law, did, on the thirtieth day of January, 1873, in order that he might become qualified to vote at said election, Page 92 U. S. 235 offer to the collector at his office in said city to pay any capitation tax due from him to said city, or any capitation tax that had been theretofore assessed against him by said city, or which could be assessed against him by said city, or which said city or said collector claimed was due from him to said city, and that the said collector then and there wrongfully refused, on account of his race or color, to give the said party an opportunity to pay said capitation tax for the preceding year, and then and there wrongfully refused to receive said tax from the said party in order that he might become qualified to vote at said election, the said collector having then and there given to citizens of the white race an opportunity to pay such taxes due from them to said city, in order that they might become qualified for that purpose. All that is there alleged may be admitted, and yet it may be true that the complaining party never made any offer at the time and place mentioned to pay the capitation tax of one dollar and fifty cents due to the city at the time and place mentioned, in such terms, and under such circumstances, that if the offer as made had been accepted by the person or officer to whom the offer was made, and that such person or officer had done everything which it was his duty to do, or everything which it was in his power to do, to carry it into effect, the offer would have constituted performance of the prerequisite act. Actual payment of the capitation tax on or before the 15th of January preceding the day of election is the prerequisite act to be performed to qualify the citizen, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, to vote at said election. Such an offer, therefore, in order that it may be deemed and held as a performance in law of such prerequisite, must be an offer to pay the amount of the capitation tax; and the party making the offer must then and there possess the ability and means to pay the amount to the person or officer to whom the offer is made, for unless payment of the amount of tax is then and there made to the said person or officer, he would not be authorized to discharge the tax, and could not carry the offer into execution without violating his duty to the city. 5. Readiness to pay, therefore, is necessarily implied from Page 92 U. S. 236 the language of the third section, as it is only in case the offer fails to be carried into execution by reason of the wrongful act or omission of the person or officer charged with the duty of receiving or permitting such performance that the offer can be deemed and held as performance in law of such prerequisite act. Where the party making the offer is not ready to pay the tax to the person or officer to whom the offer is made, and has not then and there the means to make the payment, it cannot be held that the offer fails to be carried into execution by reason of the wrongful act or omission of the person or officer to whom the offer is made, as it would be a perversion of law and good sense to hold that it is the duty of such a person or officer to carry such an offer into execution by discharging the tax without receiving the amount of the tax from the party making the offer of performance. Giving full effect to the several allegations of the count, nothing approximating to such a requirement is therein alleged, nor can anything of the kind be implied from the word "offer" as used in any part of the indictment. Performance of that prerequisite, by citizens otherwise qualified, entitles all such, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, to vote at such an election, and the offer to perform the same, if the offer is made in terms, and under such circumstances, that if it be accepted and carried into execution, it will constitute performance, will also entitle such citizens to vote in the same manner and to the same extent as if they had performed such prerequisite, provided the offer fails to be carried into execution by reason of the wrongful act or omission of the person or officer charged with the duty of receiving and permitting such performance. Judges, inspectors, and other officers of elections, must take notice of these provisions, as they constitute the most essential element or ingredient of the offense defined by the third section of the act. Officers of the elections, whether judges or inspectors, are required to carry those regulations into full effect, and the provision is, that any judge, inspector, or other officer of election, whose duty it is or shall be to receive, count, certify, register, report, or give effect to the vote of such citizens, who shall wrongfully refuse or omit to receive, count, certify, Page 92 U. S. 237 register, or give effect to the vote of any such citizen, upon the presentation by him of his affidavit stating such offer, and the time and place thereof, and the name of the officer or person whose duty it was to act on such offer, and that he, the citizen, was wrongfully prevented by such person or officer from performing such prerequisite act, shall for every such offense forfeit and pay the sum of $500 to the person aggrieved, and also be guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined and imprisoned as therein provided. 6. Of course, it must be assumed that the terms of the affidavit were exactly the same as those set forth in the third count of the indictment, and if so it follows that the word "offer" used in the affidavit must receive the same construction as that already given to the same word in that part of the section which provides that the offer, if it fail to be carried into execution by reason of the wrongful act or omission of the person or officer charged with the duty of receiving or permitting such performance, shall be deemed and held as a performance in law of such prerequisite act. Decisive confirmation of that view is derived from the fact that the complaining party is only required to state in his affidavit the offer, the time, and the place thereof, the name of the person or officer whose duty it was to act thereon, and that he, the affiant, was wrongfully prevented by such person or officer from performing such prerequisite act. None will deny, it is presumed, that the word "offer" in the affidavit means the same thing as the word "offer" used in the declaratory part of the same section, and if so it must be held that the offer described in the affidavit must have been one made in such terms and under such circumstances that if the offer had been accepted, it might have been carried into execution by the person or officer to whom it was made -- or in other words it must have been an offer to do whatever it was necessary to do to perform the prerequisite act, and it follows that if the word "offer," as used in the Act of Congress, necessarily includes readiness to pay the tax, it is equally clear that the affidavit should contain the same statement. Plainly it must be so, for unless the offer has that scope, if it failed to be carried into execution, it could not be held that the failure was by Page 92 U. S. 238 the wrongful act or omission of the person or officer to whom the offer was made. Such a construction must be erroneous, for if adopted it would lead to consequences which would shock the public sense, as it would require the collector to discharge the tax without payment, which would be a manifest violation of his duty. Taken in any point of view, it is clear that the third count of the indictment is too vague, uncertain, and indefinite in its allegations to constitute the proper foundation for the conviction and sentence of the defendants. Even suppose that the signification of the word "offer" is sufficiently comprehensive to include readiness to perform, which is explicitly denied, still it is clear that the offer, as pleaded in the fourth count, was not in season to constitute a compliance with the prerequisite qualification, for the reason that the state statute requires that the capitation tax shall be paid on or before the fifteenth day of January preceding the day of the election. Having come to these conclusions, it is not necessary to examine the fourth section of the Enforcement Act, for the reason that it is obvious without much examination that no one of the counts of the indictment is sufficient to warrant the conviction and sentence of the defendants for the offense defined in that section. MR. JUSTICE HUNT: I am compelled to dissent from the judgment of the Court in this case. The defendants were indicted in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky. Upon the trial, the defendants were, by the judgment of the court, discharged from the indictment on account of its alleged insufficiency. The fourth count of the indictment contains the allegations concerning the election in the city of Lexington; that by the statute of Kentucky, to entitle one to vote at an election in that state, the voter must possess certain qualifications recited, and have paid a capitation tax assessed by the City of Lexington; that James F. Robinson was the collector of said city, entitled to collect said tax; that Garner, in order that he might be entitled to vote, did offer to said Robinson, at his office, to pay any capitation tax which had been or could be assessed against Page 92 U. S. 239 him, or which was claimed against him; that Robinson refused to receive such tax on account of the race and color of Garner; that at the time of the election, having the other necessary qualifications, Garner offered his vote, and at the same time presented an affidavit to the inspector stating his offer aforesaid made to Robinson, with the particulars required by the statute, and the refusal of Robinson to receive the tax; that Farnaugh consented to receive his vote, but the defendants, constituting a majority of the inspectors, wrongfully refused to receive the same, which refusal was on account of the race and color of the said Garner. This indictment is based upon the Act of Congress of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 140. The first four sections of the act are as follows: "SECTION 1. That all citizens of the United States, who are or shall be otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in any state, territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any state or territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding." "SEC. 2. That if, by or under the authority of the constitution or laws of any state or the laws of any territory, any act is or shall be required to be done as a prerequisite or qualification for voting, and, by such constitution or laws, persons or officers are or shall be charged with the performance of duties, in furnishing to citizens an opportunity to perform such prerequisite, or to become qualified to vote, it shall be the duty of every such person and officer to give to all citizens of the United States the same and equal opportunity to perform such prerequisite, and to become qualified to vote, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and if any such person or officer shall refuse or knowingly omit to give full effect to this section, he shall, for every such offense, forfeit and pay the sum of $500 to the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered by an action on the case with full costs, and such allowance for counsel fees as the court shall deem just; and shall also, for every such offense, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be fined not less than five Page 92 U. S. 240 hundred dollars, or be imprisoned not less than one month and not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court." "SEC. 3. That whenever, by or under the authority of the constitution or laws of any state, or the laws of any territory, any act is or shall be required to [be] done by any citizen as a prerequisite to qualify or entitle him to vote, the offer of any such citizen to perform the act required to be done as aforesaid shall, if it fail to be carried into execution by reason of the wrongful act or omission aforesaid of the person or officer charged with the duty of receiving or permitting such performance, or offer to perform, or acting thereon, be deemed and held as a performance in law of such act; and the person so offering 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 fact, performed such act; and any judge, inspector, or other officer of election, whose duty it is or shall be to receive, count, certify, register, report, or give effect to the vote of any such citizen who shall wrongfully refuse or omit to receive, count, certify, register, report, or give effect to the vote of such citizen, upon the presentation by him of his affidavit stating such offer, and the time and place thereof, and the name of the officer or person whose duty it was to act thereon, and that he was wrongfully prevented by such person or officer from performing such act, shall, for every such offense, forfeit and pay the sum of $500 to the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered by an action on the case, with full costs, and such allowance for counsel fees as the court shall deem just; and shall also, for every such offense, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be fined not less than $500, or be imprisoned not less than one month and not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court." "SEC. 4. That if any person, by force, bribery, threats, intimidation, or other unlawful means, shall hinder, delay, prevent, or obstruct, or shall combine and confederate 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 as aforesaid, such person shall, for every such offense, forfeit and pay the sum of $500 to the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered by an action on the case, with full costs and such allowance for counsel fees as the court shall deem just, and shall also, for every such offense, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be fined not less than $500, or be imprisoned not less than one month and not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court. " Page 92 U. S. 241 It is said, in opposition to this indictment and in hostility to the statute under which it is drawn, that while the second section makes it a penal offense for any officer to refuse an opportunity to perform the prerequisite therein referred to on account of the race and color of the party, and therefore an indictment against that officer may be good as in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment, the third section, which relates to the inspectors of elections, omits all reference to race and color, and therefore no indictment can be sustained against those officers. It is said that Congress has no power to punish for violation of the rights of an elector generally, but only where such violation is attributable to race, color, or condition. It is said also that the prohibition of an act by Congress in general language is not a prohibition of that act on account of race or color. Hence it is insisted that both the statute and the indictment are insufficient. This I understand to be the basis of the opinion of the majority of the court. On this I observe: 1. That the intention of Congress on this subject is too plain to be discussed. The Fifteenth Amendment had just been adopted, the object of which was to secure to a lately enslaved population protection against violations of their right to vote on account of their color or previous condition. The act is entitled "An Act to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in the several states of the Union, and for other purposes." The first section contains a general announcement that such right is not to be embarrassed by the fact of race, color, or previous condition. The second section requires that equal opportunity shall be given to the races in providing every prerequisite for voting, and that any officer who violates this provision shall be subject to civil damages to the extent of $500, and to fine and imprisonment. To suppose that Congress, in making these provisions, intended to impose no duty upon, and subject to no penalty, the very officers who were to perfect the exercise of the right to vote -- to-wit, the inspectors who receive or reject the votes -- would be quite absurd. 2. Garner, a citizen of African descent, had offered to the collector of taxes to pay any capitation tax existing or claimed Page 92 U. S. 242 to exist against him as a prerequisite to voting at an election to be held in the City of Lexington on the thirtieth day of January, 1873. The collector illegally refused to allow Garner, on account of his race and color, to make the payment. This brought Garner and his case within the terms of the third section of the statute, that "the person so offering and failing as aforesaid" -- that is, who had made the offer which had been illegally rejected on account of his race and color -- shall be entitled to vote "as if he had, in fact, performed such act." He then made an affidavit setting forth these facts, stating, with the particularity required in the statute, that he was wrongfully prevented from paying the tax, and presented the same to the inspector, who wrongfully refused to receive the same, and to permit him to vote, on account of his race and color. A wrongful refusal to receive a vote which was in fact incompetent only by reason of the act "aforesaid" -- that is, on account of his race and color -- brings the inspector within the statutory provisions respecting race and color. By the words "as aforesaid," the provisions respecting race and color of the first and second sections of the statute are incorporated into and made a part of the third and fourth sections. To illustrate, sec. 4 enacts that if any person by unlawful means shall hinder or prevent any citizen from voting at any election "as aforesaid," he shall be subject to fine and imprisonment. What do the words, "as aforesaid," mean? They mean, for the causes and pretenses or upon the grounds in the first and second sections mentioned -- that is, on account of the race or color of the person so prevented. All those necessary words are by this expression incorporated into the fourth section. The same is true of the words "the wrongful act or omission as aforesaid," and "the person so offering and failing as aforesaid," in the third section. By this application of the words "as aforesaid," they become pertinent and pointed. Unless so construed, they are wholly and absolutely without meaning. No other meaning can possibly be given to them. "The person (Garner) so offering and failing as aforesaid shall be entitled to vote as if he had performed the act." He failed "as aforesaid" on account of his Page 92 U. S. 243 race. The inspectors thereupon "wrongfully refused to receive his vote" because he had not paid his capitation tax. His race and color had prevented that payment. The words "hindered and prevented his voting as aforesaid," in the fourth section, and in the third section the words "wrongfully refuse" and "as aforesaid," sufficiently accomplish this purpose of the statute. They amount to an enactment that the refusal to receive the vote on account of race or color shall be punished as in the third and fourth sections is declared. I am the better satisfied with this construction of the statute when, looking at the Senate debates at the time of its passage, I find, 1st, that attention was called to the point whether this act did make the offense dependent on race, color, or previous condition; 2d, that it was conceded by those having charge of the bill that its language must embrace that class of cases; 3d, that they were satisfied with the bill as it then stood, and as it now appears in the act we are considering. The particularity required in an indictment or in the statutory description of offenses has at times been extreme, the distinctions almost ridiculous. I cannot but think that in some cases good sense is sacrificed to technical nicety, and a sound principle carried to an extravagant extent. The object of an indictment is to apprise the court and the accused of what is charged against him, and the object of a statute is to declare or define the offense intended to be made punishable. It is laid down that "when the charge is not the absolute perpetration of an offense, but its primary characteristic lies in the intent, instigation, or motives of the party towards its perpetration, the acts of the accused, important only as developing the mala mens, and not constituting of themselves the crime, need not be spread upon the record." United States v. Almeida, Whart.Prac. 1061, 1062, note; 1 Whart.C.L. § 285, note. In the case before us, the acts constituting the offense are all spread out in the indictment, and the alleged defects are in the facts constituting the mala mens. The refusal to receive an affidavit as evidence that the tax had been paid by Garner, and the rejection of his vote, are the essential acts of the defendants which constitute their guilt. The rest is matter of motive or instigation only. As to these, the extreme particularity and Page 92 U. S. 244 the strict construction expected in indictments, and penal statutes would seem not to be necessary. In Sickles v. Sharp, 13 Johns. 49, it is said, "The rule that penal statutes are to be strictly construed admits of some qualification. The plain and manifest intention of the legislature ought to be regarded." In United States v. Hartwell , 6 Wall. 385, it is said, "The object in construing penal as well as other statutes is to ascertain the legislative intent. The words must not be narrowed to the exclusion of what the legislature intended to embrace, but that intention must be gathered from the words. When the words are general, and embrace various classes of persons, there is no authority in the court to restrict them to one class, when the purpose is alike applicable to all." In Ogden v. Strong, 2 Paine C.C. 584, it is said, "Statutes must be so construed as to make all parts harmonize, and give a sensible effect to each. It should not be presumed that the legislature meant that any part of the statute should be without meaning or effect." In United States v. Morris , 14 Pet. 474, the statute made it unlawful for a person "voluntarily to serve on a vessel employed and made use of in the transportation of slaves from one foreign country to another." No slaves had been actually received or transported on board the defendant's vessel, but the court held that the words of the statute embraced the case of a vessel sailing with the intent to be so employed. The court said, "A penal statute will not be extended beyond the plain meaning of its words; . . . yet the evident intention of the legislature ought not to be defeated by a forced and over-strict construction." In the case of The Donna Mariana, 1 Dods. 91, the vessel was condemned by Sir William Scott under the English statute condemning vessels in which slaves "shall be exported, transported, carried," &c., although she was on her outward voyage, and had never taken a slave on board. "The result is that where the general intent of a statute is to prevent certain acts, the subordinate proceedings necessarily connected with them, and coming within that intent, are embraced in its provisions." Id. In Hodgman v. People, 4 Den. 235, 5 id. 116, an act subjecting Page 92 U. S. 245 an offender to "the penalties" of a prior act was held to subject him to an indictment, as well as to the pecuniary penalties in the prior statute provided for. Especially should this liberal rule of construction prevail, where, though in form the statute is penal, it is in fact to protect freedom. An examination of the surrounding circumstances, a knowledge of the evil intended to be prevented, a clear statement in the statute of the acts prohibited and made punishable, a certain knowledge of the legislative intention, furnish a rule by which the language of the statute before us is to be construed. The motives instigating the acts forbidden, and by which those acts are brought within the jurisdiction of the federal authority, need not be set forth with the technical minuteness to which reference has been made. The intent is fully set forth in the second section, and the court below ought to have held, that, by the references in the third and fourth sections to the motives and instigations declared in the second section, they were incorporated into and became a part of the third and fourth sections, and that a sufficient offense against the United States authority was therein stated. I hold, therefore, that the third and fourth sections of the statute we are considering do provide for the punishment of inspectors of elections who refuse the votes of qualified electors on account of their race or color. The indictment is sufficient, and the statute sufficiently describes the offense. The opinion of the majority of the court discusses no subjects except the sufficiency of the indictment and the validity of the Act of May 31, 1870. Holding that there was no valid law upon which the crime charged could be predicated, it became unnecessary that the opinion should discuss other points. If it had been held by the court that the indictment was good, and that the statute created the offense charged, the question would have arisen, whether such statute was constitutional, and it was to this question that much the larger part of the argument of the counsel in the cause was directed. If the conclusions I have reached are correct, this question directly presents itself; and I trust it is not unbecoming that my views upon the constitutional points thus arising should be set forth. I have no warrant to say that those views are, or are not, entertained Page 92 U. S. 246 by any or all of my associates. The opinions and the arguments are those of the writer only. The question of the constitutionality of the Act of May 31, 1870, arises mainly upon the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It is as follows: "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 servitude." "2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." I observe in the first place that the right here protected is in behalf of a particular class of persons -- to-wit citizens of the United States. The limitation is to the persons concerned, and not to the class of cases in which the question shall arise. The right of citizens of the United States to vote, and not the right to vote at an election for United States officers, is the subject of the provision. The person protected must be a citizen of the United States, and, whenever a right to vote exists in such person, the case is within the amendment. This is the literal and grammatical construction of the language, and that such was the intention of Congress will appear from many considerations. As originally introduced by Mr. Senator Henderson, it read, "No state shall deny or abridge the right of its citizens to vote and hold office on account of race, color, or previous condition." Globe, 1868-69, pt. i. p. 542, Jan. 23, 1869. The Judiciary Committee reported back the resolution in this from: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress, by appropriate legislation, may enforce the provisions of this article." Id. Omitting the words "and hold office," this is the form in which it was adopted. The class of persons indicated in the original resolution to be protected were described as citizens of a state; in the resolution when reported by the committee, as citizens of the United States. In neither resolution was there any limitations as to the character of the elections at which the vote was to be given. If there was a right to vote, and the person offering Page 92 U. S. 247 the vote was a citizen, the clause attached. It is both illiberal and illogical to say that this protection was intended to be limited to an election for particular officers -- to-wit those to take part in the affairs of the federal government. Congress was now completing the third of a series of amendments intended to protect the rights of the newly emancipated freedmen of the South. In the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment -- that slavery or involuntary servitude should not exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction -- it took the first and the great step for the protection and confirmation of the political rights of this class of persons. In the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment -- that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states in which they reside," and that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," another strong measure in the same direction was taken. A higher privilege was yet untouched; a security, vastly greater than any thus far given to the colored race, was not provided for, but, on the contrary, its exclusion was permitted. This was the elective franchise -- the right to vote at the elections of the country and for the officers by whom the country should be governed. By the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment, each state had the power to refuse the right of voting at its elections to any class of persons, the only consequence being a reduction of its representation in Congress, in the proportion which such excluded class should bear to the whole number of its male citizens of the age of twenty-one years. This was understood to mean and did mean that if one of the late slaveholding states should desire to exclude all its colored population from the right of voting at the expense of reducing its representation in Congress, it could do so. The existence of a large colored population in the southern Page 92 U. S. 248 states, lately slaves and necessarily ignorant, was a disturbing element in our affairs. It could not be overlooked. It confronted us always and everywhere. Congress determined to meet the emergency by creating a political equality, by conferring upon the freedmen all the political rights possessed by the white inhabitants of the state. It was believed that the newly enfranchised people could be most effectually secured in the protection of their rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by giving to them that greatest of rights among freemen -- the ballot. Hence the Fifteenth Amendment was passed by Congress and adopted by the states. The power of any state to deprive a citizen of the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude or to impede or to obstruct such right on that account was expressly negatived. It was declared that this right of the citizen should not be thus denied or abridged. The persons affected were citizens of the United States; the subject was the right of these persons to vote, not at specified elections or for specified officers, not for federal officers or for state officers, but the right to vote in its broadest terms. The citizen of this country, where nearly everything is submitted to the popular test and where office is eagerly sought, who possesses the right to vote, holds a powerful instrument for his own advantage. The political and personal importance of the large bodies of emigrants among us, who are entrusted at an early period with the right to vote, is well known to every man of observation. Just so far as the ballot to them or to the freedman is abridged, in the same degree is their importance and their security diminished. State rights and municipal rights touch the numerous and the everyday affairs of life; those of the federal government are less numerous, and, to most men, less important. That Congress, possessing, in making a constitutional amendment, unlimited power in what it should propose, intended to confine this great guaranty to a single class of elections -- to-wit, elections for United States officers -- is scarcely to be credited. I hold therefore that the Fifteenth Amendment embraces the case of elections held for state or municipal as well as for federal officers, and that the first section of the Act of May Page 92 U. S. 249 31, 1870, wherein the right to vote is freed from all restriction by reason of race, color, or condition, at all elections by the people -- state, county, town, municipal, or of other subdivision -- is justified by the Constitution. It is contended also that in the case before us there has been no denial or abridgment by the State of Kentucky of the right of Garner to vote at the election in question. The state, it is said, by its statute authorized him to vote, and if he has been illegally prevented from voting, it was by an unauthorized and illegal Act of the inspectors. The word "state" "describes sometimes a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, inhabiting temporarily or permanently the same country; often it denotes only the country or territorial region inhabited by such a community; not unfrequently it is applied to the government under which the people live; at other times it represents the combined idea of people, territory, and government. It is not difficult to see that in all these senses the primary conception is that of a people or community. The people, in whatever territory dwelling, either temporarily or permanently and whether organized under a regular government or united by looser and less definite relations, constitute the state. . . . In the Constitution, the term 'state' most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A state, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such states under a common constitution which forms the distinct and greater political unit which that constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and states which compose it one people and one country." Texas v. White , 7 Wall. 720, 74 U. S. 721 . That the word "state" is not confined in its meaning to the legislative power of a community is evident not only from the authority just cited, but from a reference to the various places in which it is used in the Constitution of the United States. A few only of these will be referred to. The power of Congress to "regulate commerce among the Page 92 U. S. 250 several states," sec. 8, subd. 3, refers to the commerce between the inhabitants of the different states, and not to transactions between the political organizations called "states." The people of a state are here intended by the word "state." The numerous cases in which this provision has been considered by this Court were cases where the questions arose upon individual transactions between citizens of different states, or as to rights in, upon, or through the territory of different states. "Vessels bound to or from one state shall not be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties, in another." Sec. 9, subd. 5. This refers to region or locality only. So "the electors (of President and Vice-President) shall meet in their respective states, and vote," &c. Art. 2, sec. 1, subd. 3. Again, when it is ordained that the judicial power of the United States shall extend "to controversies between two or more states, between a state and the citizens of another state, between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects," art. 3, sec. 2, subd. 1, we find different meaning attached to the same word in different parts of the same sentence. The controversy "between two or more states" spoken of refers to the political organizations known as states; the controversy "between a state and the citizens of another state" refers to the political organization of the first-named party, and again to the persons living within the locality where the citizens composing the second party may reside; the controversy "between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states," refers to the local region or territory described in the first branch of the sentence, and to the political organization as to the grantor under the second branch. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state." Art. 4, sec. 1. Full faith shall be given in or throughout the territory of each state. By whom? By the sovereign state, by its agencies and authorities. To what is Page 92 U. S. 251 faith and credit to be given? To the acts of the political organization known as the state. Not only this, but to all its agencies, to the acts of its executive, to the acts of its courts of record. The expression "state," in this connection, refers to and includes all these agencies, and it is to these agencies that the legislation of Congress under this authority has been directed, and it is to the question arising upon the agencies of the courts that the questions have been judicially presented. Hampton v. McConnell , 3 Wheat. 234; Green v. Sacramento, 3 W.C.C. 17; Bank of Alabama v. Dalton , 9 How. 528. The judicial proceedings of a state mean the proceedings of the courts of the state. It has never been doubted that under the constitutional authority to provide that credit should be given to the records of a "state," it was lawful to provide that credit should be given to the records of the courts of a state. For this purpose, the court is the state. The provision that "the United States shall guarantee to every state a republican form of government," is a guaranty to the people of the state, and may be exercised in their favor against the political power called the "state." It seems plain that when the Constitution speaks of a state, and prescribes what it may do or what it may not do, it includes, in some cases, the agencies and instrumentalities by which the state acts. When it is intended that the prohibition shall be upon legislative action only, it is so expressed. Thus, in art. 1, sec. 10, subd. 1, it is provided that "no state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts." The provision is, not that no state shall impair the obligation of contracts, but that no state shall pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts. The word "state" in the Fifteenth Amendment is to be construed as in the paragraph heretofore quoted respecting commerce among the states, and in that which declares that acts of a state shall receive full faith and credit in every other state -- that is, to include the acts of all those who proceed under the authority of the state. The political organization called the "state" can act only through its agents. It may act through a convention, through its legislature, its governor, or its magistrates and officers of lower degree. Whoever is authorized to Page 92 U. S. 252 wield the power of the state is the state, and this whether he acts within his powers or exceeds them. If a convention of the State of Kentucky should ordain or its legislature enact that no person of African descent, or who had formerly been a slave, should be entitled to vote at its elections, such ordinance or law would be void. It would be in excess of the power of the body enacting it. It would possess no validity whatever. It cannot be doubted, however, that it would afford ground for the jurisdiction of the courts under the Fifteenth Amendment. It is the state that speaks and acts through its agents; although such agents exercise powers they do not possess, or that the state does not possess, and although their action is illegal. Inspectors of elections represent the state. They exercise the whole power of the state in creating its actual government by the reception of votes and the declaration of the results of the votes. If they willfully and corruptly receive illegal votes, reject legal votes, make false certificates by which a usurper obtains an office, the act is in each case the act of the state, and the result must be abided by until corrected by the action of the courts. No matter how erroneous, how illegal or corrupt, may be their action, if it is upon the subject which they are appointed to manage, it binds all parties as the action of the state until legal measures are taken to annul it. They are authorized by the state to act in the premises, and if their act is contrary to their instructions or their duty, they are nevertheless officers of the state, acting upon a subject committed to them by the state, and their acts are those of the state. The legislature speaks; its officers act. The voice and the act are equally those of the state. I am of the opinion, therefore, that the refusal of the defendants, inspectors of elections, to receive the vote of Garner was a refusal by the State of Kentucky, and was a denial by that state, within the meaning of the Fifteenth Amendment, of the right to vote. It is contended further that Congress has no power to enforce the provisions of this amendment by the enactment of penal laws; that the power of enforcement provided for is limited to correcting erroneous decisions of the state court, when presented to the federal courts by appeal or writ of error. "For Page 92 U. S. 253 example (it is said), when it is declared that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, this declaration is not intended as a guaranty against the commission of murder, false imprisonment, robbery, or other crimes committed by individual malefactors, so as to give Congress power to pass laws for the punishment of such crimes in the several states generally." So far as the Act of May, 1870, shall be held to include cases not dependent upon race, color, or previous condition, and so far as the power to impose pains and penalties for those offenses may arise, I am not here called upon to discuss the subject. So far as this argument is applied to legislation for offenses committed on account of race or color, I hold it to be entirely unsound. If sound, it brings to an impotent conclusion the vigorous amendments on the subject of slavery. If there be no protection to the ignorant freedman against hostile legislation and personal prejudice other than a tedious, expensive, and uncertain course of litigation through state courts, thence by appeal or writ of error to the federal courts, he has practically no remedy. It were as well that the amendments had not been passed. Of rights infringed, not one in a thousand could be remedied or protected by this process. In adopting the Fifteenth Amendment, it was ordained as the second section thereof, "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." This was done to remove doubts, if any existed, as to the former power; to add at least the weight of repetition to an existing power. It was held in the United States Bank Cases and in the Legal Tender Cases, 17 U. S. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Gibbons v. Ogden , 7 Wheat. 204; New York v. Miln , 11 Pet. 102; Knox v. Lee , 12 Wall. 457; Dooley v. Smith , 13 Wall. 604, that it was for Congress to determine whether the necessity had arisen which called for its action. If Congress adjudges that the necessities of the country require the establishment of a bank, or the issue of legal tender notes, that judgment is conclusive upon the court. It is not within their power to review it. If Congress, being authorized to do so, desires to protect the freedman in his rights as a citizen and a voter, and as against Page 92 U. S. 254 those who may be prejudiced and unscrupulous in their hostility to him and to his newly conferred rights, its manifest course would be to enact that they should possess that right; to provide facilities for its exercise by appointing proper superintendents and special officers to examine alleged abuses, giving jurisdiction to the federal courts, and providing for the punishment of those who interfere with the right. The statute books of all countries abound with laws for the punishment of those who violate the rights of others, either as to property or person, and this not so much that the trespassers may be punished as that the peaceable citizen may be protected. Punishment is the means; protection is the end. The arrest, conviction, and sentence to imprisonment, of one inspector, who refused the vote of a person of African descent on account of his race, would more effectually secure the right of the voter than would any number of civil suits in the state courts, prosecuted by timid, ignorant, and penniless parties against those possessing the wealth, the influence, and the sentiment of the community. It is certain that in fact the legislation taken by Congress, which we are considering, was not only the appropriate, but the most effectual, means of enforcing the amendment. That the legislation in this respect is constitutional is also proved by the previous action of Congress and of this Court. Art. 4, sec. 5, subd. 3, of the Constitution provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." At the time of the adoption of the Constitution containing this provision, slavery was recognized as legal in many states. The rights of the slaveholder in his slave were intended to be protected by this clause. To enforce this protection, Congress, from time to time, passed laws providing not only the means of restoring the escaped slave to his master, but inflicting punishment upon those who violated that master's rights. Thus as early as 1793, Congress enacted not only that the master or his agent might seize and arrest such fugitive slave, and, upon obtaining a certificate from a judge or magistrate, carry him back Page 92 U. S. 255 to the state from whence he escaped and return him into slavery, but that every person who hindered or obstructed such master or agent or who harbored or concealed such fugitive after notice that he was such, should be subject to damages not only, but to a penalty of $500, to be recovered for the benefit of the claimant in any court proper to try the same. 1 Stat. 302. By the Act of 1850, 9 Stat. 462, the circuit courts were ordered to enlarge the number of commissioners, "with a view to afford reasonable facilities to reclaim fugitives from labor." The ninth section of the act provided that any person who should willfully obstruct or hinder the removal of such fugitive, either with or without process, or should rescue or aid or abet an attempt to escape, or should harbor or conceal the fugitive, having notice, should for either of said offenses be subject to a fine not exceeding $1,000 and imprisonment not exceeding six months, by indictment and conviction in the United States court, "and shall pay and forfeit, by way of civil damages to the party injured by such illegal conduct, the sum of $1,000 for each fugitive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action of debt," &c. In Prigg v. Pennsylvania , 16 Pet. 539, the legislation of 1793 was held to be valid. It was held in Sims's Case, 7 Cush. 285, that the Act of 1850 was constitutional and that the state tribunals cannot by writ of habeas corpus interfere with the federal authorities when acting upon cases arising under that act. In Ableman v. Booth , 21 How. 506, it was held by this Court that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was constitutional in all its provisions, and that a habeas corpus under the state laws must not be obeyed, but the authority of the United States must be executed. The case of Prigg, decided under the Act of 1793, and that of Booth, under the Act of 1850, are pertinent to the present question. In the former case, it was held that the Act of 1793, so far as it authorized the owner to seize and recapture his slave in any state of the Union, was self-executing, requiring no aid from legislation, either state or national. The clause relating to fugitive slaves, it is there said, is found in the national, and not Page 92 U. S. 256 in the state, constitution. It was said to be a necessary conclusion, in the absence of all positive provision to the contrary, that the national government is bound through its own departments, legislative, judicial, or executive, to carry into effect all the rights and duties imposed upon it by the Constitution. This doctrine is useful at the present time and is pertinent to the point we are considering. The clause protecting the freedmen, like that sustaining the rights of slaveholders, is found in the federal Constitution only. Like the former, it provides the means of enforcing its authority, through fines and imprisonments, in the federal courts, and here, as there, the national government is bound, through its own departments, to carry into effect all the rights and duties imposed upon it by the Constitution. In connection with the clause of the Constitution just quoted, there was not found, as here, an express authority in Congress to enforce it by appropriate legislation, and yet the court decided not only that Congress had power to enforce its provisions by fine and imprisonment, but that the right to legislate on the subject belongs to Congress exclusively. Courts should be ready, now and here, to apply these sound and just principles of the Constitution. This provision of the Constitution and these decisions seem to furnish the rule of deciding the constitutionality of the law in question, rather than that which provides that life, liberty, or property, shall not be interfered with except by due process of law. It is not necessary to consider how far Congress may legislate upon individual crimes under that provision. If I am right in this view, the legislation we are considering -- to-wit, the enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment by the means of penalties and indictments -- is legal. It is a well settled principle that if an indictment contain both good counts and bad counts, a judgment of guilty upon the whole indictment will be sustained. The record shows that the court below considered each and every count of the indictment as insufficient, and that judgment was entered discharging the defendants without day -- i.e., from the whole indictment. Upon the view I have taken of the validity of the fourth count, this judgment was erroneous. It should be reversed and a trial ordered upon the indictment.
In United States v. Reese (1875), the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the power to legislate on voting rights in state elections under the Fifteenth Amendment, but only to address discrimination based on race, color, or previous servitude. The Court invalidated parts of the 1870 Act that went beyond this scope. The case established the principle that Congress's power to enforce constitutional amendments is limited to addressing the specific issues they address.
Trademarks
Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/456/844/
"U.S. Supreme Court Inwood Laboratories v. Ives\nLaboratories, 456\nU.S. 844 (1982) Inwood Laborator(...TRUNCATED)
"Here is a summary of the case:\n\nInwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories (1982) concerned generic(...TRUNCATED)
Search & Seizure
Florida v. Jimeno
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/500/248/
"U.S. Supreme Court Florida v. Jimeno, 500\nU.S. 248 (1991) Florida v. Jimeno No. 90-622 Argued Marc(...TRUNCATED)
"Here is a summary of the case:\n\nThe Supreme Court ruled that a criminal suspect's Fourth Amendmen(...TRUNCATED)
Taxes
Crandall v. Nevada
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/73/35/
"U.S. Supreme Court Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 U.S. 6\nWall. 35 35 (1867) Crandall v. State of\(...TRUNCATED)
"In Crandall v. State of Nevada (1867), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state tax on passengers (...TRUNCATED)
Taxes
Hylton v. U.S.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/171/
"U.S. Supreme Court Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 3\nDall. 171 171 (1796) Hylton v. United\nStates(...TRUNCATED)
"The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a tax on carriages for conveying people, kept for(...TRUNCATED)
Search & Seizure
California v. Acevedo
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/500/565/
"U.S. Supreme Court California v. Acevedo, 500\nU.S. 565 (1991) California v. Acevedo No. 89-1690 Ar(...TRUNCATED)
"Police may search a container within a car without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe(...TRUNCATED)
Antitrust
U.S. v. E.C. Knight Co.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/156/1/
"U.S. Supreme Court United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895) United States v. E. C. Knig(...TRUNCATED)
"In United States v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal governme(...TRUNCATED)
Search & Seizure
Weeks v. U.S.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/232/383/
"U.S. Supreme Court Weeks v. United States, 232\nU.S. 383 (1914) Weeks v. United\nStates No. 461 Arg(...TRUNCATED)
"In the case of Weeks v. United States (1914), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment pro(...TRUNCATED)

US Supreme Court Verdicts

Taxonomy:

category: Subject

case: title of the case

link: source

document: official document content

summary: summary of the document created by cmd-r +

Downloads last month
78

Models trained or fine-tuned on macadeliccc/US-SupremeCourtVerdicts