The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1866-04-13

compelled % take refuge In 0oopouc power,
and the days Of constitutional liberty would
soea b numbered. The doubt then was, and
ths doubs now should BE- moro firmly settled
IN the public mind, that . country - extern
sive as that of the United States cannot ex
lot except By means Of divided soysreignties;
one sossrsignty having charge OF all sxssr-
nal matters, or matters between the states to
which the powers Of the states are made
quats; the other sosersigntles having power
over all internal matters 10 the management
Of which they are adequate. Desposism
would soon DO our fate, proceeded By An
archy the military chisftain, instead Of be-
ing looked upon, ae he should DO By every re.
publican, with alarm and concern, would be
hailed - . savior in order to save Us from
the horrors of disorganization.
But look ct the second section OF this bill.
II dsclal Is that any person who under the 90.
YER Of any law shall subject or cause 80 DO
subjected any inhabitant of any state or ter
risory to the deprivation of any right secured
or protected by tho bill, or to different pun.
ishment, pains or penalties than those pre-
scHibed for white persons, shall be deemed
guilty of q misdemeanor, ana DO convicted
shall be punished by fine or imprisonment
or both. What says the president, and what
IS think, 10 he fully justified In saying?-
He has not said it as strongly as the sxigen
ey would have justified. Whrt is the mean
ing of the section? The right has been given
to make and enforce contracts, &C.; and then
the second section says, In order to secure
those rights, that he who shall interfere with
them under color of law shall be considered
q criminal. What 10 the effect Of that? In
the fret place, it assumes what il true. that
or custom inconsistent with the exercise of
the rights secured by the first section. an ex-
isting Law, organic or stuatory. which declares
who may sue, who may contract, who may
testify, who may hold real and personal es-
tate, who may inherit, who may marry; and
if any judge, las the president says and as
| say. who is called upon to decide whether
the state law is in force because this law is
unconstitutional, shall hold it to be in force
notwithstanding this law, is to DO punished.
The honorable member from Illinois told US
that that is only true whore there is an inten-
tional wrongful decision on the part Of the
judge. This is not SO, Mr.. President. The
intention 10 presumed from the offence. Ii
the offence is clearly defined, an intention is
made no bar to the offence; he who commits
the offence 10 Q criminal. Here it is clearly,
specially defined You. judge of the state
court who think proper to enforce as against
any of the parties q judgement inconsistent
with the rights secured by the first section of
this bill, in consequence of any law or regu-
lation OF a state, shall be liable to an indict-
ment in the courts af the United States, and
punished by fine, or imprisonment, or both"
The FIRST section usurps, as think, what
has heretofore been considered as the exclu-
sive authority of the states. The second sec
ton goes q step further, and declares that
the judge. whether he honestly or dishonesty
declares that the state law is binding ire
spective of your statute, shall be punished.
This usurps power inconsistent with the in
dependence and integrity of the state judicl
ary. The first section strikes ct the legisla.
tive authority of the states the next strikes
at the judicial department of the govern
ment of the states, and the two lay them
both down at the footstool of federal pow.
or.
But that 10 not all. Unwilling to trust
the state courts with the authority TO pass
upon the defined crimes, it gives the district
courts of the United States. within their dis
triCts, exclusive Of the courts Of the states,
jurisdiction. Then it abolishss all the state
courts. as far as relates to these offences. and
what are the cases in which this exclusive
jurisdiction ia vested in the courts of the
United States
ssThat the district courts OF the United States,
within their respective districts have exclu
ance of ali crimes and offences committed against
the provisions of this act, and also, concurrently
with the circuit courts of the United States, of all
cases, civil and criminal, affecting persons who
are denied cannot enforce in the courts judi
cial tribunals of the state or locality where they
may be, any of the rights secured to them by the
first section OF this act; and if any suit prosecu
ton, civil or criminal, has been shall be COM
menced in any state court ainst any such person.
for any cause whatever, against any ofeer, CIV
ii or military, or other person, for any arrest
imprisonment, tresPasses, or wrongs done or com
mitted by virtue under color of authority de-
rived from this act the act establishing a bu-
reau for the relief of freedmen and refugees, and
all acts amendatory thereof, or for refusing to do
any act upon the ground that il would be inconsist
emit with this act, such defendant shall have the
right TO remove such case tor trial to the proper
district circuit'court in the manner prescribe
ed by the act relating to habeds corpus and reguia-
ting judicial proceedings in certain cases, approx
ed March 3, 1863, and all acts amendatory there
OFF,
4 black man being made to believe by the
provisions of this bill that the rights secured
TO him by the bill are improperly i1terfered
with by a state or some state officer, or one
of the commissioners or sub-commissioners or
agents, for there are hosts of them provided
for IN subsequent parts of the bill, undsrtak-
ing without authority or by the use Of unnec-
essery harshness to arrest q white citizen of
q state, il met with the Independence of
freeman, who, in the exertion Of his right of
self defence, Stays his sssailant. He is to be
tried in the courts of the United States. Any
such officer or any colored person who, in the
assertion of the rights and authority which
he supposes to be conferred on either by this
act slsys a white man, is not to be tried for
murder in state court, but must be tried in
a court of The United States. How my friend
from Illinois can bring his mind to the be-
lief that there exists any authority to give
such jurisdiction TO the courts of the United
States, passes my comprehension. believe
he at one time. belonged to party which
held to a strict construction OF the constitu-
tuition. Here. practically, the bill goes upon
the theory that there is but one government