The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1866-04-12
THE CIVIL RIGHTsLAw
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

From, he Philadelphia North american.
The howl raised in the Senate and in
the columns of the Democratic organs
as to the alleged unconstitutlonailty
and revolutionary chaFacter of the
Civil Rights bill is something surpFis-
ling. when the opponents of slavery
cOntended that the fugitive slave law
was UNCONSTITUTIONAL, the assertion was
treated as mere fanaticiSmJ unworthy
of notice, and the courts continued to
enforce the act down TO the date OF lls
repeal; no national tribunal ever hav-
ing declared it unconstitutional. AS
the machinery of the Civil Rights bill
Is Cooled from that act,h of course the
allegation of unconstitutionality can
not refer to, that, which is indeed the
greater part of the measure, but must
mean the provisions declaring all ma
tiveslof the United States citizens, and
entitled to full and complete equallty
before the law.
It3is somewhat odd to find that the
portion of the act copi led from thesfugf-
tive slave law is considered regular and
valid, while that which merely guaran
tees protection to life and property ana
immunity from outrage and injustice
is the Unconstitutional Gpa1t against
which the clamor is raised. But in fact
the latter is the essential part of the
measure, from which it derives all its
importance and character, and upon 1t,
therefore, the issue is staked, SO that in
discussing the subject we may leave
outtofsyiew all, the rest, the objections
to which, as urged by the President,
mightiwith as muGh propriety beIrrged
against tie Fugitive slave law, for which
tie author of these objections voted.
They are just such objections as an in
genious lawy urge against any law
whatever - 49, - = L-t+
What, then, is the purpose of this
part of the bill that is SO unconstltu-
ti0nal3, The, opponents ofthe measure
saw that It is mot the epurposet that they
object to, butthe mode of etfecting 1t.
They contend that the national govern
ment has no authority to confer these
civil rights, and that they must come
through the States only. This is the
old State rights theory over again, and
we MFG Int traverse resins and reAins OF
pa per In debating such theme, with
| iitile prospect OF satisfying any one,
weddeef to these schemes and devises
of fdisintegratiOn, as preceded the great
war Tor nationality so recently closed.
Let us ask Is it-necessary for the friends
Eof the Civil Rights bill TO accept such
'nn issue andrenew all this, discussion
over again? We do not think it is. II
the war decided anything at all, it GER
tainly must have decided that this peo-
|. ole constitute a nation and not mere
lcOngeries of States. Il
The enemies OF nationality, refusing
to abide the pacific solution of thai
problem, cast their choice into bloody
and terrible war, in which they Were
| completely and overwhelmingly beat
en-. Whether they be subjugated States
Tor once more equal with the others, the
| issue upon " hich they made war has
been decided against them, and they
cannot expect US now to go back to .
peaceful discussion of it. The Consti-
tuition itself provides a civil tribunal
august in character, and possessing the
popular confidence, to which all such
lquestions may properly be referred
i and If that Court should decide against
4 us, which we do not expect or believe
/, possible, we have remedy LEFT open e
4 as by the Constitution itself, by means
/ of an amendment. - E iisl.s,-
we beg, therefore, to say TO thost
] who seem TO imagine that they car
u provoke a discussion on this question
\ that half a. century of political STRIFE
/ about It, and four years Of fearful war
! have left ns'no disposition to reopen SC
yexatious disputesz Mere discussion
4 as 10 whether the States shall override
national rights as we'll as individual
1 might have been appropriate before the
war. It is not now and nditsreneWal car