The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1866-04-13
A Logical, Succinct and Scathfng Re-
view of the Measure.
A SPEECH By SENATOR REvERDY
JOHNSON, OF MARYLAND. IN
THE UNITED STATES SEM
ATE, APRIL s. ls6e. ON
THE CIVIL RIGHTS
BILL, IN REPLY
TO 6R.TRUM.
BULL.
(Concludsd.)

If there be anything that may DO consider
cd - true in the past In constitutional law,
it is that over every one of these rights, or,
TO speak more correctly. over every one of
the subiscts to which these rights are made
to attach, the jurisdiction of the states was
exclusive. The honorable member from Illi-
nois seems to forget as think, what is the
real character of our institutions. This bill,
in my opinion, strikes q: all of the reserved
rights of the states. You may look in the
statute bouk in vain, cir, and nobody knows
it bester than you do, Mr.. Harris in the
chair)-and am sure the honorable mem
Der from Illinois will agree that such is the
fact-you may look in the statutes of the
United States and in the journals of congress
In vain for the purpose OF finding that at any
time, from 1883 up to the breaking out of
this rebellion. any body ever proposed in con-
gress by legislation to regulate, BY securing
or otherwise, the rights which are referred to
in the latter part OF this section. What are
they? The declaring who may be author.
lied to make contracts and who may be au-
thorized to enforce contracts; who may be
authorized to sue, to be parties, and give evil
denoe, inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and
convey real and personal estate? If congress
can legislste in relation to these rights In
behalf of the black, why cannot they legis.
late in relation to the same rights in behalf
Of the white? And if they can legislats in
relation to both, the states are abolished be.
cause, If the further provision of this bill fol-
lows las perhaps it does flow legitimately up
on the assu On ption of the constitutionality of
the provisions of the fret section to which
have adverted,) that congress has the author
ity to constitute it's own tribunals for the pur-
pose Of gfansing relief for the enforcement of
these rights, then the state courts may be
closed up. If congress can prescribe the
rules Of evidenee,is 10 because with reference
to that question this government is a CONSOLE
dated government. | submit that nothing
can be palmer than that; and yet it would
have started with surprise any mem Der of the
convention of 1887, or any member of the
congress of the United States who passed the
Judiciary act of September, 1889. to have
been told that there lurked somewhere In the
constitution of the United States an aushori-
ty by which congress could usurp to itself a
right to enter in the limits of the several
states and regulate the Law of contract, the
law of evidence, the law Of devise, and the
law of marriage.
And yet my friend from Illinois says that
that provision is clearly constitutional; and
whyf Because, as / understand him, il is
the business OF every government TO protect
it's own citizens. That is begging the entire
question. Il is the business of the general
government to protect citizens of the United
States whore that protection canno. be OBJ
tanned through the fundamentally of the
states; but where the rights of citizens of
the United States are given by state laws
over subjects intrustsd exclusively to state
legislation, it is the exclusive business of the
state to protect them.
But that is not ell. The first section has
another provision. Not satisfied with MAX
ing the parties citizens and clothing them
with all the rights belonging to white citizens
py the laws OF the states, it says that they
shall be subject to like punishment, pains,
and penalties, and to none other" That in
Yadss the jurisdiction of the states over their
criminal code. Congress assumes to define q
crime, and defining crime to it's own courts
exclusive Jurisdiction over the party charged
with its preparation. It strikes at the GRIM
anal code of the states. The result, there
lore, OF the three provisions in this section 10,
That, contrary to state constitutions and state
laws, 1t converts man that is not a citizen
OF state into q citizen of the state 1t gives
HIM all the rights that belong to citizen of
the state; and il provides that his punish
ment shall only be such as the state laws i'm
pose upon white citizens, Where is the au-
thority to do that? If it exists, it is still
more obvious that the result Is an entire an.
Inhalation of the power of the states. 1t
seems to be the fashion OF the hour-I do
not know that my honorable friend from Illi-
nois goes to that extent-to hold to the doc
trine that the sooner everything 10 vested in
the government of the United States the bet
ter for the country. II is q psrilous dslusion.
If such a proposition had been supposed to
be found anywhere in the constitution of the
United States, it never would have been
adopted by the people; and if it is assumed
or if it is considered as constitusionslly ex-
listing oy virtue of some power not before
known. the government will not last half
century. / have not time to read from the
writings of Mr.. Madison and Mr.. Hamilton
and the decisions Of the supreme courts ON
the question.
But You, Mr.. President, know very we'll
that consolidation of power in the governments
OF the United States was looked upon a. Ger.
tain ruin to republican institutions In the frat
place. it would bs sure to result in anarchy