The tri-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1866-1868, 1866-03-31

make, and therefore cannot, under thi'
) bill, enter into the marriage contrac
with the whites. I cite this discrimi
nation, however, as an instance OF the
State policy as to discrimination, ant
to inquire whether, if Congress car
abrogate all State laws of discrimina
ton between the two races, i'll the mat
ter of real estate, of suits, and of con
traits generally, Congress may not also
repeal the State laws as to the contract
of marriage between the two races P
Hitherto, every subjectembraced In the
enumeration of rights contained in this
bill has been considered as exclusively
belonging to the States. They all re-
late to the internal olicy and economy
of the respective States. They arc mat
ters which in each State concern the
domestic condition of its people, vary.
ing in each according to its own pecu.
liar circumstances, and the safety and
well-being of its own citizens. | do
not mean to say that upon all these
subjects there are not Federal restraints.
as, for instance in the State power OF
legislation over contracts, there is q
Federal limitation that no State shall
pass law impairing the obligations OF
contracts; and as to crimes, that nc
State shall pass an er post .ftacto law
and as to money, that no State shall
make anything but gold and silver Il
legal tender. But where can we find q
Federal prohibition against the power
of any State to discriminate, as do most
Of them, between aliens and citizens.
between artificial persons called corpo-
rations, and natural persons, in the
right to hold real estate?
If it be granted that Congress can re-
peal all State laws discriminating be-
tween whites and blacks in the subjects
covered by this bill, why, it may be
asked, may not Congress repeal in the
same way all State laws discriminating
between the two races on the subjects
of suffrage and office? If Congress can
declare by law who shall hold lands.
who shall testify, who shall have ca
pacity to make a contract i'll a State
then Congress can by law also declar,
who, without regard to color or race
shall have the right to sit as juror O;
as a judge, to hold any office, and
finally, to vote {" in every State ano
Territory of the United States" A
respects the Territories, they come with
in the power of Congress, for as to then
the law-lnaking power is the Fedora
power; but as to the States no similar
provision exists, vesting in Congress
the power "to make rules and regula
tions'' for them.
The object of the second section O.
the bill is to afford discriminating pro
lection to colored persons in the full.
enjoyment of all the rights secured to
them by the preceding section. 1t de
clares "that any person who, under
color of any law, statute, ordinance,
regulation, or custom, shall subject, OF
cause to be subjected, any inhabitant o.
any State or Territory to the depriva
ton Of any right secured or protected
by this act, or to different punishment
pains, or penalties on account of such
person having ut any time been held IL
a condition of slavery or involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment fol-
crime whereof the party shall have beer
duly convicted, or by reason of his color
or race, than is prescribed for the
punishment of white persons, shall be
deemed guilty of misdemeanor, and,
on conviction, shall be punished b fine
not exceeding one thousand dollars, or
or both, in the discretion of the court"
This section seems to be designed to
apply to some existing or future law OF
q State or Territory which may conflict
with the provisions of the bill now I'M
der consideration. It provides for coun-
teracting such forbidden legislation by
imposing fine and imprisonment upon
the legislators who may pass such con-
fiicting laws, or upon the officers or
agents who shall put, or attempt to put,
them into execution. 1t means an Off
clal 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 deprivation of
the right itself, either by the State iu-
dietary or the State Legislature. It is
therefore assumed that under this sec
ton members of State legislatures, who
should vote for laws conflicting with the
provisions Of the bill, that Judges of the
State courts who should render iudo-
mcnts in antagonism with its terms. and
that marshals and shcritfs who should.
as ministerial officers, execute processes
sanctioned by State laws and issued by
State Judges in execution of their
judgments, could be brought before
other tribunals and there subjected to
fine and imprisonment for the perform
ance of the duties WHICH such State laws
might impose
The legislation thus proposed invades
the judicial power Of the State. 1t says
to every State Court or Judge, if you
decide that this act is unconstitutional
If you refuse, under the prohibition of
State law, to allow negro to testify
if you hold that over such a subject
matter the State law is paramount, and
" under COLOR of State law refuse the
exercise of the right to the negro--your
error of Judgment, however conscien-
tious, shall subject you to fine and i'm
prisonment l do not apprehend that
the conflicting legislation, which the
bill seems to contemplate, is SO likely to
occur as to render it necessary at this
time to adopt measure of such doubt
ful constitutionality.
In the next place, this provision of
the bill seems to be unnecessary, as adj
i . I