The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1866-03-29
The Civil Rights Bill.

The Civil Rights Bill.
It will be remembered that, when
the State Convention first passed
upon the Constitutional amendment
abolishing slavery, that body refused
to ratify the second clause, as invest
ing Congress with too much power.
It will, moreover, be remembered
there was sharp correspondence be-
tween Gov. Perry and Mr.. Seward on
the subject, and that the latter re-
buked the action of the Convention
as querulous and captious-that there
was no cause for apprehension from
the action of Congress.
Well, what have we presented to
us, to-day, in the "Civil Rights
Bill" as it is called, but the begin
ming of that action which the mem
bers of the Convention feared. Mr..
Seward may have been deceived him
self in relation to the extent that
radicalism would push it's mischievous
designs; but it is certain that our
people were the subjects of great
deception, whether intended or not.
But as the telegraph despatch we
published yesterday informs us of
the almost certain veto of this bill by
the President, it is to be hoped that
again will the wicked schemes of
these arch-agitators be frustrated.
Since the above was written, we
have received some of our back mails
from the North, and We find some of
the New York journals discussing the
constitutional authority to pass such
a bill. The New York World has
some admirable remarks on this point.
That journal, in speaking of the con-
stitutional amendment abolishing
slavery, and which has been adopted
by all the States which have COM
pleted their action on this subject,
says:
cit is obvious that the authority
conferred on Congress by the second
nAkection of the amendment is founded
ia, and measured by, the declaration
freedom contained in the first.
"a freedom which the first section
gclares, the second empowers Con-
s gress to maintain; and it confers no
other power whatever.
"The liberation of q slave by pub
$ lie authority docs for him precisely
s,er more nor less than private
4 mission by master. It merely
$ the masters ownership. The
htee merely prevents the re-
~ ion of that ownership. Itleaves
be freedman, in respect to all civil
hts conferred by State laws, just
ere he would have been left by a
of manumission given him by
master. The complete cancella-
zion of all claims to ownership being
the sole object, and therefore the ex-
act limit, of the authority conferred
by the amendment, Congress cannot
-overpass that limit and assume othe,
powers, without transcending its au-
thority. But the Civil Rights bill
assumes to guarantee to all persons
of every race and color'-that is, to
all negroes-'the same right in every
State and territory to make and en-
force contracts, to sue and be sued, to
be parties and give evidence, to in
herit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and
convey real and personal property,
and to be entitled to full and equal
benefit of all laws for the security of
person and property as white citizens.
These are matters which have always
belonged to the exclusive jurisdiction
of the States. Under the jurisdiction
of the States they still remain, unless
transfer is made by the amend
ment."
The World argues the point we'll.
The amendment referred to, of
course, was intended to operate on
slanes, and beyond cancelling the
claims of ownership, it conferred no
authority on Congress. Previous to
its adoption, there were in the United
States, in 1860, nearly 500. ZOO slaves.
In all the former slave States, and in
most of the free States, they were
subject to civil or political disabilities,
by reason of their race and color.
To pretend that the emancipation