UNITED STATES V. AMSDEN. 81S^ �the surviving partner. It seems to be a case where the plain- tiff should be permitted upon proper terms to state hio side of it in his own way, not only once, but twice or thrice, or more. But there should be terms, not only of costs, but the plaintiff should stipulate, if the defendant desires it, that service was not made upon either of the partners. This fact I understand to be conceded, but it may be difficult of proof hereafter. I do not know exactly how the first count stands after the two demurrers, Three proposed counts, purporting to be subsequent to the first, and counting on matters occur- ring after the original judgment, may be filed; and the plain- tiflE may file within six days such count on the original judg- ment as he may be advised : provided, that before either of these amendments are allowed as part of the record, tb& plaintiff shall pay the defendant's costs to this time, and file^ if the defendant requires it, the stipulation above mentioned. ���United Statxs r. Amsden and others. �[DiOrici Court, D.Indiana. May 4, 1881.) �1. Ibdicthert— Violation of the Fedehai. Election— Sbctiok 6607^ Rbv. St., I'. «., Section 6 op the Act of Mat 31, 1870, Know» AB THE " Enforcemert Act," (16 8t. 140.) �(1) The afteentb amendment considered, and held, that the pover of congress to legislate upon the right of votlng at state election» rests upon this amendment, and is llmited to prohibitions agalnst discriminations on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude ; and it is further limited to prohibitions of such discrimi- nation by the United States, the states, and their officers, or others- claiming to act under color of laws -within the prohibition of the amendment. �(2) Section 6507, Rev. St., which is section 6 of the act of May 31^ 1870, (16 St. 140,) known as the " Enforcement Act," is not authorized by the flfteenth amendment, because it is not so limited. The essen- tial element of discrimination on account of race, color, etc., is want- �I ing. The phrase, "to whom the right of suffrage isguarantied by the flfteenth amendment," which distinguishes this section from cer- . tain other sections of the same act, does not save it from these objec- tions. That phrase is not the equivalent of a phrase limiting the prescribed acts to discriminations on account of race, color, etc. The ��� �
