Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1863-04-18
CoIored observation-disclosures ofthe Leg
fsIarIve Committee.

COIOred ImmigratiOn---RcPOrt Ofthe Leg
isIatIve Committee.
The Committee on Federal Relations Of
the House of Representatives, consisting
Of Messrs. Clarke, West, Pierce and Zinn,
to which we're referred petitions praying
for the prevention of colored immigration
into the State, presented TO the House a
report which establishes The fact that the
Legislature has no power 10 act in the pre-
mises. The Committee do not discuss the
power Of the Constitution Of the United
States in the matter, cOnfning themselves
to the single objection, viz: "The COnstitu-
tuition Of Ohio, by whose power alone the
Legislature can act, has not only not dele
gated such power to the Legislature, but
the history Of the convention that formed
that instrument shows that such power
was purposely withheld" In the De-
bates Of the Ohio Convention, propO-
sitions we're offered by Mr. Blickensderfer
Of Tusoarawas, that appropriations Of
moneymight be made for the colonization Of
free people of color "Whenever it can be
done without causing an emigration of
such persons from adjoining States" Mr..
Holmes Of Hamilton, moved to amend by
iuserting-'and the General Assembly
shall, by law, prohibit black or mulatto
persons from emlgrating into, or becoming
residents within, the limits Of this State"
This proposition was thoroughly discussed,
and the conclusion arrived at that
such general prohibition Of immigration
would be in conflict with the Con-
stitution of the United States Mr..
Vance, Of Butler, then offered as q
substitute, that the General Assembly
should by such legislation as should be
consistent with the Constitution Of the
United States, discourage the immigration
Of black population. This amendment
was rel ected. Mr.. Blickensderfer's prOpo-
sition was also rejected. The question
was notagain revived by the Convention,
50 that the Constitution was adopted by
that body and ratified by the people with
not one word in it to warrant the Legisla-
ture in the exercise of SO high a power.
It is clear that the Convention considered
the subject and purposely withheld grant
ing any such power to the Legislature
And having thus withheld the power, it is
equally evident that the Legislature has
no right to assume the authority, for from
the Constitution as from a power of attor-
ney, comes their only authorization to act
at all.
The Report says:
"From these considerations it follows
that it is always legitimate to insist that
any legislative enactment drawn in ques-
ton, is void, either because IL does not fall
within the general grant of power to that
body, or because 1t is expressly prohibited
by some provision Of the Constitution
(See Ohio State Reports, vol. /, pages
s4-s6")
In support of this opinion, the Commit
tee quote from Judge Ranney in the case
Of Debolt vs. Ohio Life Insurance and
Trust Company, where he says that
"the absence of such power in
the provisions Of the Constitution would
be enough to forbid the Legislature at
tempting to exercise it." Again, Judge
Ranney, in the case of the C. W. 81.
Railroad Company, Vs the Commissioners
Of Clinton County, says;
"The authority of the General Assembly
is much too broadly stated, when it is
stated that all their acts must be consid-
cred as valid, which are not otexpressly pro-
hibited by the Constitution
In the same case the court held that any
act passed by the General Assembly, not
falling fairly within the scope Of legisla-
tive authority, was as clearly void as
though expressly prohibited.
The Committee, therefore, finding no au-
thority granted by the Constitution to
enact such law, report back the petitions
with no accompanying bill, and ask to be
discharged. The report is able and con-
elusive, and settles the question to the sat
isfaction Of all candid persons.