Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-03-28

contemplated by the Constitution of theU s
The bill, in effect, proposes a diserimina-
ten against large numbers of intelligent,
worthy nd patriotic foreigners, in favor Of
the nego, to whom, after long years oi
bondage, the avenues to freedom and intel
ligenee b ave igst now been suddenly opened
He must Of necessity, from his previous un-
fortunate condition of servitude, be less in
formed a. to the nature of our institutions
than he who, coming from abroad, has, 10
some extent at least, familisrizsd himself
with the principles of a government to which
he voluntarily entrusts life, liberty and the
| pursuit of happiness. Yet il is now proposed
| by single legislative enactment to confer
the rights of citizens upon all persons Of
African descent born within the extended
limits of the United States, while persons OF
foreign birth who make our land their home
must undergo probation of FIVE years, and
can only then become citizens on proof that
| they are of good moral character, attached
to the principles of the Constitution of the
United States, and well disposed to the good
order and happiness of the same.
The first section Of the bill also contains an
enumeration of the rights to be enjoyed by
these classes, so made citizens in every State
| and territory in the United States. These
rights are "to make and enforce contracts,
TO sue, be parties and give evidence, TO in
herit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey
real and personal property, and to have such
full and equal benefit of all laws and proceed
ings for the security of persons and property
as is enjoyed by white citizens" So, too, they
are made subject to the same punishment,
pains and penalties common to white
citizens and to none other. Thus perfect
equality of white and colored races is at
tempted to be fixed by federal law in every
State ofthe Union, over the vast field of State
jurisdiction, covered by these enumerated
rights. In no one of them can any State
exercise any power of discrimination be-
tween the races. In the exercise of State
policy over matters exclusively affecting
the people of each State, it has frequently
been thought ezpedient to discriminate be-
tween the two races by the statutes of some
of the States North as well as South. 1t is
enacted, for instance, that no white person
shall intermarry with a negro or mulatto.
Chancellor Kent says, speaking of the
blacks, that marriages between them and
the whites are forbidden in some of the
States where slavery does not exist, and
they are prohibited in all slave holding
States by laws and when not contrary 10
law they are revolving and regarded as
an offense against public decorum. l do
not say that this bill repeals State law on
the subject OF marriage between the two
races, for as the whites are forbidden to in
termarry with the blacks, the blacks can
only make such contracts as the whites
themselves are allowed to make, and there
fore cannot, under this bill, enter into the
marriage contract with the whites I cite
this discrimination, however, as an instance
of the State policy as to discrimination, and
to enquire whether if Congress can abrogate
all State laws of discrimination between the
two races in the matter of real estate
and suits of contracts generally, Congress
may not also repeal State laws as to the
contract Of marriage between races? So every
subject embraced in the enumeration of
rights contained in the bill has been con
sidered as exclusively belonging to the
States. They all relate to the internal
policy and economy of the respective States.
They are matters which in each State con
cern the domestic condition of its people,
varying in each according to its own pc
culiar circumstances, and the safety and
well being Of its own citizens. / do not
mean to say that upon all these
respects there are not federal restraints. As
for instance, in the State power Of legisla-
ton over contracts. there is federal limi
tation that no State shall pass a law i'm
pairing the obligations of contracts, and as
10 crimes, that no State shall pass an er-p0st
Jacto law, and as t. money, that no State
shall make anything but gold and silver
legal tender. But where can we find a fed
eral prohibition against the power of any
State to discriminate, as do most Of them be-
tween aliens and citizens, between artificial
persons called corporations naturalized,
by persons in the right to hold real estate |
If it be granted that Congress can repeal all |
State laws discriminating between whites |
and blacks in the sabjects covered by this |
bill, why, it may be asked, may not Con-
gress repeal in the same way all State |
laws discriminating between the two |
races on the subject Of suffrage |
aud Office? IF Congress can declare |
by law who shall hold lands, who shall tes- |
tify, who shall have capacity to make con-
tracts in State, then Congress can also by
law, declare who, without regard to race or |
color, shall have the right to sit as juror |
or IS judge, to hold any Office, and finally |
to vote in every State or territory Of the |
United States. AS respects the territories, !
they come within the power Of Congress, for |
as TO them, the law making power is the |
Federal power, but as to the States no SINH |
lar provision exists, vesting in Congress the |
power to make rules and regulations for
them.
The object Of the second section of the |
bill is to afford discriminating protection to |
the eolored persons in the full enjoyment of |
all the rights secured to them by the pre-
ceeding section. 1t declares that any per-
son who under color of any law, statute, Or
1inance, regulation Ar custom shall subject, |
Or cause to be subHNad, any inhabitant of |
any State or Terrhst to the deprivation of
any rights secured to him and protected |
by this ect, or no different punishment,
pain or penalties on account of such person
having at any time been held in
condition Of slavery or involuntary servi-
tude, except as a punishment of crime,
the party shall have been duly con-
yicted, or by reason of color or race, than is
prescribed for the punishment of white
persons, shall be deemed guilty Of a mis-
leamor, and on conviction shall be pun
shed by "a fine not exceeding one thousand
dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding one
year, or both, in the discretion fthe court"
This section seems to be designed to an
ply to some existing or future law of a
State, which may conflict with theprovisions
# the bill under consideration. It provides
or counteracting such fOrbidden1egislation
,y imposing fine and imprisonment upon
he legislator who may pass such conflicting
avs, or upon the officers or agents who
,ut or attempt to put them into execution.
{ means an official offense, not a common
rhine committed against the law, upon the
/
N act may deprive the black man Of his
but not Of his right to hold pro-
,ertY. 1t means a deprivation Of the right
tself by the State judiciary or the State
legislature It is therefore assumed that
inder this section any member Of the State
who should vote for laws con-
letting with the provisions of the bill, that
Judges Of the State Courts who should rem
Ter judgments in antsgonism with its terms,
md that marshals and sheriffs who should,
IS ministerial officers, execute any process
anetioned by the State laws and issued by
,tate Judges in the execution Of their judg-
nents, could be brought before other tri-
,unals and there subjected to fine
md imprisonment, for the perform
nee of the duties which such
tate laws might impose. Legislation
hus proposed inVades the judicial power of
he State It says 20 every State Court or
udge: If you decide that this act is uncon-
titutional. if you refuse under the prohibi-
ion of State law to allow a negro to testi-
Y, if you hold that over such a subject
natter the said law is paramount, and un-
er color of State law refuse the exercise
f the right to the negro, your judgment,
lowever conscientious, shall subject you TO
me and imprisonment" do not spprehend
hat conflicting legislation which the bill
Gems TO contemplate is so likely to occur
S TO render it necessary at this time TO adopt {
measure of such doubtful constitutionality.
In the next place this provision Of the
i'll seems to be unnecessary as adequateju- j
Iicial measures could be adopted tO secure {
be desired end without invading the i'm I
cunities Of Legislators, which should always {
,e preserved in the interest of public Hber- /