The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1866-04-19

Under the above caption the chicago
Times Of Tuesday last has the following
very sensible article, which We commend
to our readers. Il says:
Our readers will remember that we sew
eral days ago gave an account of a case
pending in the Tippecauoe Circuit Court
in Indiana in which negro sued white
man on a contract. The 18th article CT
the Constitution Of that State forbids me-
groes coming into the State, and debars
them from all right to enforce contracts.
Judge Treat, Of the court referred to,
decided shat the amendment to the Consti>
tuition abolishing slavery made negroes cit
liens, and thereby declared void the 18th
article of the Constitution of the State.
The counsel for the negro claimed the
right to enforce the contract under the
Civil Rights bill. Judge Treat held that
independent of that act, and for the reason
above given, the negro could sustain his
action. We think The decision is logically
consistent, although entirely wrong. In
less the State and United States constitu-
tons were in conflict, Congress of course
could pass no law impairing the validity
of the former If the negroes are citizens,
there was not required any legislation by
Congress to protect them in the privileges
asserted for them in the bill 1t is the
right of every citizen to sue and be sued,
to hold, buy and sell real and personal
property. 60 far as civil rights are con>
cerned all citizens are equal before the
law. Judge Treat has SO decided.
His error lies in assuming that the late
Constitutional amendment conferred citi>
zenship upon the negroes. We have re-
Gently discussed this question at length,
and shall not here again comment upon IT.
There are two or three points which very
properly may be set forth in this connec~
ton, however, and which we did not i'm
agine would be disputed after the late de-
bate in the United States Senate on the
passage of the Civil Rights bill over the
yeto.
The late constitutional amendment mere>
y abolished an institution existing in a
portion of the States Of The Union. 1t did
not therefore, nor could it, affect States
where thai institution did not exist
The only power which Congress can cx>
ercisc in legislating upon the question of
citizenship is the power to prescribe auni,
form rule Of naturalization. 1t reaches
only to foreigners.
Before the formation Of the Union each
State possessed the right to declare for
itself who should be citizens. That right
was not surrendered by any of them when
the Constitution was formed. 1t is absurd
to claim that it was surrendered in the
passage Of the amendment abolishing slave,
Try.
Citizenship cannot be derived from
birth alone, in this country. "There must
be added to the fact Of nativity the other
fact that at the time Of his birth he is by
the laws Of the State in which he is born, a
citizen, and thereby a citizen of the United
States"
Judge Treat, in his decision, has over
ridden the opinion delivered by Judge
Curtis in the bred Scott case, which was
held By all republicans to be unanswerable
until the party was afflicted with mania
to legislate for the benefit ofnegroes within
the States. All the points named above
were raised and discussed by the Supreme
Court in that ase,-sayo those relating to
the constitutional ameudment,-and there
was no disagreement upon the one that cit
izcnship cannot be derived from birth
! alone in this country; that there must be
added to the fact of nativity the other fact
tba, at the time of his birth he is By the
laws of the State in which he is born a
citizen. This doctrine is fatal to the de-
cision of Judge Treat. 1t was the doc
trine Of Judge Curtis and Of the entire SUI
preme Court in that case. We do not be-
lieve there is judge in the Supreme Court
TO- day, except Judge Chase, who will dis
sent from it. He IS now engaged in the
dissenting business.