The tri-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1866-1868, 1866-04-24
CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

AN IMPORTANT DECISION TO BE RENDERED.
LAFAYETTE, Ind, April ia colored
man named Barnes brought suit againsta
prominent citizen this morning to enforce a
contract. The defendant, for answer, sets up
that the negro came into the State IN viola
ton OF the thirteenth article of the consti-
tuition Of the State of Indiana, which, under
pains and penalties, prohibits negroes from
coming into the State, and debars them from
all rights 70 enforce contracts, ct.
Plail tiff demutS to the answer, maintaining
that tue ..,I. ,eenth article is void and OF no
effect, because: 1. 1t is in contraventlon Of
the letter and spirit of the Constitution o.
the United Stales :. 1t is i'll direct coniict
with the constitutional amendment abolish
ing slavery. 3. 1t is void under the first sec
tion OF tue Civil Rights bill, which gives t.
all persons born in the United States iu!i
riylt to make and enforce contracts, any law,
statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to
the contrary notwithstanding
The court sustained the demurrer, and the
defendant appeal to the circuit court, Which
is now Ii SESSION.
The case was submitted to-day, and after
argUment OF counsel It was taken under ad-
visement Judge Gest will probably render
Il deCi ion Tomorrow. Under the second
section OF the Civil Rights bill he can only
decide III favor OF the negro, ior the reason
that an adverse decision would subject hlnl
to the penalty of one thousand dollars line
AMI imprisonment.
We arc glad tliat the first case under this
unconstitutional law arises in State like
lndIuna and we are inclined To believe thai
tue occurrence of Il few such Gases IN each oi
the northern States would bring tic people
there to their sense.
Look at the points in the demurrer o1 the
negro: The lrst point Is not WORTH an ~ fSu-
mtnt, because that provision mas eAlstcu III
tlc Indiana Constitution for Years, and When
ii adopted, Indiana might, under thu
Federal Constitution, have estaolished sia-
very and reduced the blacks comlug INTO tine
State to that condition. Certainly, then, ui-
less the recent amendment 10 the icdcI;t
Constitution Is inconsistent with tue attlcl1
in question: the latter Is not unconstitutional.
Now, IIlat amendment merely prov idci, nis'',
that slavery snail not exist III the li.4'v''
States, and, secondly, that Congress s.la.i
have power 10 carry this prohibition OF sii;-
Very lnto effect. Nothing else tnin this can
fairly NC found IL the ameniment; and uS
the article in the Indiana Constitution ce--
tlniy docs nor establish slavery, II loiloWS
t,.at cyea the amended Federal Constellation
Is in 10 wise III conflict with the lhiiiaA.
Constitution.
The tnrd point in the demurrer is thar til
article in question is in conflict WItA the nG'.
civil rights law. and 9U0ad toe We agFt.
with the demurrer; but we do not agree with
It that the article is before " void. On tit
contrary. we believe that even the present Su-
prcme Court OF the United States, notwitt.-
st;,n,tin.s all OF It's radical pTtjn.iicc@, Az
notwithstanding that Chief Justice ChtsA
ins already, GFjrt c"riU, ptonounccd al
opinion i'll favor of the i@',, would, Ii TINS
Indiana "a. were brought before II, hoi,i
t.ilt the IL IS unconstitutional. We mop
this c-,- !, i'll j,e taken up. ll!c:e couii tot
sell occ.r 4 better ouc iHr testing the cue
tiOn.-i!:cI Ltx.