The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1866-04-18
The First Case under the Civil Rights
Bfll-An Important Decision TO be

Bfll-An Important Decision to be
Rendered. -
LAFAYETTE, INDIANA, April IA
colored man named Barnes brought
suit against a prominent citizen this
morning to enforce q contract. The
defendant, for answer, sets up that
the negro came into the State in vio-
lation of the thirteenth article of the
Constitution of the State of Indiana,
which, under pains and penalties,
prohibits negroes from coming into
the State, and debars them from all
rights to enforce contracts, etc.
The plaintiff demurs to the answer,
maintaining that the thirteenth article
is void and of no effect, because: l.
1t is in contravention of the letter
and spirit of the Constitution of the
United States. O. It is in direct con-
f1ict with the constitutional amend
ment abolishing slavery. 3. It is
void under the first section %f the
civil rights bill, which gives to all
persons born in the United States
full right to make and enforce con
tracts, any law, statute, ordinance,
regulation, or custom to the contrary
Notwithstanding.
The court sustained the demurrer,
and the defendant appealed to the
Circuit Court, which is now in ses-
sion.
The case was submitted to-day, and
after argument of counsel, it was
taken under advisement. Judge Gest
will probably render decision to-
morrow. Under the second section
OF the civil rights bill, he can only
| decide in favor of the negro, for the
reason that an adverse decision would
subject him to the penalty Of 81, 900
fine and imprisonment.
We are glad that the first case un-
der this unconstitutional law arises in
State like Indiana; and we are in
clined to believe that the occurrence
OF few such cases in each of the
Northern States would bring the peo-
pie to their senses.
Look at the points in the demurrer
OF the negro. The first point is not
worth an argument, because that pro-
vision has existed in the Indiana
Constitution for years, and when it
was adopted, Indiana might, under
the Federal Constitution, have estab-
lished slavery and reduced the blacks
coming into the State to that condi-
ton. Certainly, then, unless the
recent amendment to the Federal
Constitution is inconsistent with the
article in question, the latter is not
unconstitutional Now, that amend
ment merely provides, first, that
slavery shall not exist in the United
States, and, secondly, that Congress
shall have power to carry this prohi-
bition Of slavery into effect. No
thing else than this can fairly be
found in the amendment; and as the
article in the Indiana Constitution
certainly does not establish slavery,
1 it follows that even tho amended
Federal Constitution is in NO Wise in
conflict with the Indiana Constitu-
tion.
The third point in the demurrer is,
that the article in question is in con-
fiict with the new civil rights law.
And qtond hoe we agree with the de-
murrer; but we do not agree with it
that the article is therefore "void. +"
On the contrary, we believe that even
the present Supreme Court Of the
United States, Notwithstanding all of
Its radical prejndices, and notwith-
standing that Chief Justice Chase
has already, extra cmia, pronounced
an opinion in favor of the law, would.
If tins Indiana case were brought
before it, hold that the la,c is uncon-
stitutional. We hope this case will
be taken mp. There could not well
occur better one for testing the
observation-disclosures Dispatch.