The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1866-04-14
VOL. 29---NO. lSl.
3lthmond nispatth.
The First Case Under the Civil Rights Bill-An
Important Decision TO bp Rendered

LaFAyErrH, IND, April IA colored man
named Barnes brought suit against n prom
nent citizen this morning to enforce a con.
tract. The defendant, tor answer, sets up
that the negro came into the State in viola ton
of the thirteenth article of the constitution OF
! the State of Indiana, which, under pains and
penalties, prohibits negroes from coming i'm TO
the State, and debars them from all rights to
enforce contracts, etc.
The plaintiff demurs to the answer, main
tanning that the thirteenth article is void and
OF no effect, because |. It's in contrayention
OF the letter and spirit of the Constitution of the
United states. >. 1t is III direct conflict with
the constitutional amendment abolishing sla-
very. ). 1t Is void under the first section of
the Civil Rights bill which gives to all persons
born i'll the United States fun right to make
ana enforce contracts, any law, statute, ordi-
nance, regulation, or custom 10 the contrary
notwithstanding.
The court sustained the demurrer, and the
defendant appealed TO the circuit court, Which
! Is now in session.
The case was submitted to- day, and after
argument of counsel ii was taken under advise
ment. Judge Gest will probably render n
decision 10 morrow. Under the second sec
/ ton of the Civil Rights bill he can only decide
in favor OF the negro, for the reason that an
adverse decision would subject him TO the
penalty of one thousand dollars fine and i'm
plisonment.
We are glad that the first case under this
unconstitutional law arises i'll a State like
Indiana; and we are inclined to believe that
the occurrence of few such cases in each of
the northern States would bring the people
there TO their senses.
Look at the points i'll the demurrer of the
negro The first point is not worth an argu-
ment, because that provision has existed in
the Indiana Constitution for years and when
il was adopted, Indiana might, under the
Federal Constitution, have established slavery
and reduced the blacks coming into the State
TO that condition. Certainly, then, unless the
recent amendment to the Federal Constitution
is inconsistent with the article in question, the
latter is not unconstitutional. Now, that
amendment merely provides, first, that slavery
shall not exist in the United States, and, Sc
condly, that Congress shall have power to
carry this prohibition of slavery into effect.
Nothing else than this can fairly be found in
the amendment and as the article i'll the IN
diana Constitution certainly does not establish
slavery, it follows that even the amended Fe-
deral Constitution is in no wise in conflict
with the Indiana Constitution.
The third point in the demurrer is, that the
article in question is in conflict with the new
civil rights law And q"ood hocwe agree with
the demurrer; but we do not agree with ii
that the article is therefore "void." On the
contrary we believe that even the present Su-
preme Court of the United States, notwith
standing all of its radical preiudices, and not
withstanding that Chief Justice CHASE has
already, tt.W cnri0, pronounced an opinion in
favor Of the law, would, if this Indiana case
were brought before it, hold that the lar is
unconstitutional. We hope this case will be
taken up There could not well occur a better
one for testing the question.