The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1866-04-04
RALEIGH, N. G., WEDNESDAY,,

w hSiSOi oiiS Pdiu oii<sAA A0N v SSOAA
duly convicted, or by reason of his color
or race, than is prescribed for the
punishment of white persons, shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and,
on conviction, shall be punished by fine
not exceeding one thousand dollars, or
imprisonment not exceeding one year,
or both, in the discretion of the court
This section seems to be designed to
apply to some existing or future law of
State or Territory which may conflict
with the provisions of the bill now un-
der consideration. 1t provides for coun-
teracting such forbidden Legislation by
imposing fine and Imprisonment upon
the legislators who may pass such con-
ficting laws, or upon the officers OF
agents who shall put, or attempt to put,
them into execution. 1t means an Off
cial offence, not common crime COM
mitted against law upon the persons or
property of the black race. Such an
act may deprive the black man of his
property, but not of his right to hold
property. 1t means a depiiv alton of
the right itself, either by the State iu-
dietary or the State legisl ature. 1t is
therefore assumed that un der this sec
ton members of State legis Hat ures, who
should vote for laws conflicting with the
provisions of the bill, that I'D ges of the
State courts who should rer.der judg-
ments in antagonism with its 5erms, and
that marshals and sheriffs ho should.
as ministerial officers, exec ute processes
c,ro4;onod bx, Ct,+o lowe and !,,,,ol H.
State Judges in execution of their
judgments, could be brou ght before
other tribunals and there objected to
fine and imprisonment fol- be perform
ance Of. the duties which ch State laws
might impose.
The legislation thus propo sed invades
the judicial power of the st: lte 1t says
to every State Court or Judge, if you
decide that this act is uncon; titutional-
if you refuse, under the pro hibition of
State law, to allow negro to testify
if you hold that over such subject
matter the State law is pa ramount, and
"under color" of Sta te Law refuse the
exercise of the right to th negro--your
error of Judgment, however conscien-
tious, shall subject You to fine and inn
prisonment! do not apprehend that
the conflicting legisl alton, which the
bill seems to contemp, ate, is so likely to
occur as to render it ne' ,essary at this
time to adopt measm e of such doubt
full constitutionality.
In the next place, this provision of
the bill seems to be unnec essary, as adj
equate judicial remedies Ct ,uld be adopt
ed to secure the desired end without
invading the immunities # Legislators,
always important to be- preserved in
the interests of public libe.-ty without
assailing the independents c of the judi
ciary, always essential to the preserva-
ton of individual rights; and without
impairing the effieienc,y of ministerial
officers, always necessary for the nain-
tenance of public peace IN d order. The
remedy proposed by TIN 5 section seems
to be, in this respect, not only anoma-
lous but unconstitutional, for the Con-
stitution guarantees moi b ing with GER
tainty, if it does not insu re TO the several
States the right of max in G and execu-
ting laws in regard to all matters aris-
ing within their jurisd ction, subject
only to the restriction t + at in cases OF
conflict with the Constit tion and con-
stitutional laws of the Uni ted States, the
latter should be held to be. the supreme
law of the land.
The third section gives the district
courts of the United st: ties exclusive
cognizance of all Grim es. and offences
committed against the pho visions of this
act," and concurrent jur; sdiction with
the circuit courts of the United States
of all civil and criminal cases affect
ing persons who are den led or cannot
enforce in the courts or judicial tribu-
nails Of the State or local. ty where they
may be any of the rig 1 It's secured to
them by the first sectio L." The con
struction which have gi ven to the see
ond section is strengthell lt I'd by this third
section, for it makes clear what kind Of
denial or deprivation Of the rights Sc
cured by the first sect ie IN was in con
temptation. 1t is de u ial or depriva
tion of such rights in the courts OF
judicial tribunals of the State. y Il
stands, therefore, clear o. doubt that the
offence and the penaltie IS provided in the
second section are inter i'd ed for the State
judge, who, in the Glen exercise of his
functions asa Judge ,no'6s citing minister
ally, but judicially, shall decide contrary
to this Federal law. n other words
when State Judge, at ing upon ques
ton involvinga a conflict between STATE
law and Federal law, and bound ac
cording to his own .iu dgment and re
sponsibility, to give an impartial decis
ion between the two, c ONES to the con
clusion that the State law is valid ant
the Federal law is inv aid, he must no
follow the dictates of b is own judgment
at the peril of fine al ID Imprisonment
The legislative depart ment of the Gov
ernment of the United States thus take
from the judicial d apartment of fh
States the sacred and exclusive duty o
judicial decision, and converts the Stat
Judge into mere ministerial officer
bound to decide at,c ording to the vii
of Congress.
1t is clear that I'M States which den,
to persons whose u ghts are secured b,
the first section of be bill any of thos
rights, all crimins j and civil cases al
fecting them will, by the provisions ofth
third section, com under the exclusiy
cognizance OF the Z ederal tribunals. !
follows that if, in I: my State which de
nies to colored srson any one of al
those rights. that e,son should commi