Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-03-29
THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL AND RE-
PUBLICAN LETTER WRITER.

The Washington correspondent of the
Cincinnati Commerciai, in anticipation of tn
Presidents veto of this obnoxious measure,
INDUCES in the following remarks We give
them as expressions from a Republican
source:
Ny impression is, that the same fate
which befell the Freedmen's Bureau Bill
awaits its twin brother, the Civil Rights Bill.
These two measures emanated from the same
source-Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois-and were
introduced at the same time, during the first
week of the present session OF the two, the
latter is the more fit subject for Executive
disfayor. 1t strikes directly at the funda-
mental law of the land, and attempts to take
from the States right reserved to them un-
der the ConstitutiOn-the right to enact and
enforce their own police regulations. If the
form of the National Government has not
been changed by the war, and if State lines
have net been entirely obliterated since 1861,
the so-called Civil Rights Bill ought to be
vetoed. 1t declares, in a few words, that all
State laws making distinctions in civil rights
on account of color, are henceforth null and
void. The object it seeks 10 attain is very
good one. 1t is what the friends of freedom
and justice have long contended for. But
the right of Congress to declare State laws
null and void is different thing. The pro-
per tribunal for testing such questions has
has heretofore been the Supreme Court. Let
the right of Congress to sitin judgment upon
the laws of the States be once recognized,
and there is no telling how far it will be
carried. If the Thirty-ninth Congress can
declare that law of Kentucky, which makes
distinction between white and colored citi-
zens, is of no force, why can not the Fortieth
Congress declare that a law of Massachusetts,,
which gives to colored men rights withheld
from naturalized citizen, shall be a dead
letter.
But the provisions of the bill now in the
hands of the President can best be illustra-
ted by stating a case in which they would be
called into effect. Not many years ago,
Congress admitted the State of Oregon into
the Union with Constitution forbidding the
immigration of negroes within her borders
By that act of admission the State Constitu-
ton was recc gnized by the General Govern
ment, ard declared to be in harmony with
the Constitution of the United States.
Under the Civil Rights Bill, the Judge who
should attempt 10 enforce the the exclusion
sanctioned by Congress, would be guilty OF
penal ofense, and subject to heavy fine and
imprisonment In Indiana there IS State
law prohibiting negroes who settled in the
Stale since 1852 from owning realestate. 1t
may be unjust and tyrannical, but the Su-
preme Court of the State has decided it to be
constitutional. Under the civil rights bill,
the Sheriff who attempts to enforce it, not
withstanding this decision, subjects himself
to fine and imprisonment. And so of other
States, from which other illustrations might
be drawn. But the Radicals fortify them
selves behind that omnipotent second clause
of the constitutional amendment, (which, a
year ago, they said meant nothing at ALL
and assert that under it they can pass all
such measures. 1t will be difficult, however,
to see wherein the adoption of a constitu-
tional amendment abolishing slavery can be
made to effect States in which slavery never
existed, or the status of that large number of
colored men who never were slaves.
The Civil Rights bill is after all, only
another attempt of the Radicals to dodge |
this cripture-imposed task of commencing
their charitable works at home. The distinc- |
lions which it aims to abolish ought MOTTO ex |
list, but this abolition must besought through |
State Legislatures, and not through Con- |
gress. Let Mr.. Julian go home to Indiana,
and stump the Burnt District in favor of the |
repeal of the unjust law, | have referred to,
and let other gentlemen from other Northern |
States do likewise. When their own hands |
are cleansed, they will be in better condi-
tionto talk to their neighbors down South.
Should Mr.. johnson veto the bill, he will |
be denounced, of course, by such patriotic
journals as the Chicago Republican, whose
editor begged relationship, and didn't get
it the Missouri Democrat, whose proprietor
wanted the St. Louis postofiice for his broth
er, and was disappointed; and the Wash
ngton Chronicle, the services of whose editor
rs chief scullion in the White House kitchen,
have recently been dispensed with. But he
will survive all these calumnies now more
easily than he survived their fawning praise |
l few months ago. And let it not be forgot
en, that such good lawyer and such a. loyal
Radical as John A. Bingham, of Ohio spoke
against the measure voted against it. and
declares that veto of it will raise the
President in the estimation of every sensible
nan in the country.