The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1869-07-28
Intermarriage between the White ana
Colored Races Declared Unlawful.

In the case OF the state VS.. H"'ls'o"' 4l''
Justice REApByesterday delivered the opin-
ion of the Supreme Court, asfollows:
The only question in the case is, whether
the intermarriage Of whites ana Diachs Is
lawful
By our marriage act, g. AN marriages since
9Th January, 1859, and all marriages IN III,
ture between a white person and Tree
negro. or a free person of color, to the tiilra
generation, shall be void Rev. Code, Chap
GS, S. Z.
Late events, and the emancipation OF the
slaves, have made no alteration IN our
policy. or in the sentiments OF our people.
And lest it might be supposed that there
was. or would be, change, the Legislature,
in 1866, re-enacted the marriage act Ana
thus the law stood at the time OF the adop-
ton of our new Constitution. The Constl-
tuition was adopted by large popular vote.
both whites and blacks voting. In the
Constitution it is provided that, 1.-THE laws
of North Carolina, not repugnant to tins
Constitution, or to the Constitution and laws
of the United States, shall be in force until
lawfully altered" Art. 4, S. "a.
1t thus appears that we have, not only the
plain letter of the acts of the Legislature,
but the sanction of the Constitution, that the
intermarriage of whites and blacks is against
public policy, and is unlawful. And as this
is a matter affecting the social and domestic
relations, it is gratifying to know that the
law has the sanction of both races. 1t IS no
discrimination in favor of one race against
the other, but applies equally to BOTH AT
the last term. in the case of the State VS..
Underwood, SO N. c r. SO, we decided that
the act forbidsling persons OF color to be
witnesses except against each other, was re-
pealed by the Constitution as being repug-
nant to its spirit, and inconsistent with our
altered condition. But that was because
there was discrimination between the races
in civil rights. Here there is no dlscrlmlna-
ton. The law operates upon both races
alike; neither can marry the other nor Is it
repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution,
nor subversivc of civil rights. but is in con-
sonance with both.
1t was insisted that the Civil Rights Bill
has declared different policy, and has
changed the law. 1t is not necessary that
we should decide whether the operation OF
that bill ended with the cessation OF our
provisional relations with the United States,
or whether it is operative now, Tor by It's
terms it has no application to the social re-
lations. Its object was, and its terms are,
to declare equality between all citizens
without regard 10 race Or color, IN the mat
tiers of making business contracts. sueing in
the Courts, giving evidence, acquiring pro-
perry and protection OF person and property.
And this is nothing more than our own State
Constitution has done But neither the
Civil Rights Bill. nor our State Constitution
was intended to enforce social equality, but
only civil and political rights. This is plain
from the very terms; hut if the terms were
doubtful the policy of prohibiting the inter
marriage of the two races is so well estab-
lished, and the wishes of both races so well
known, that we should not hesitate to declare
the policy paramount to any doubtful con-
Strnction.
The marriage relation is a peculiar and
important one. The Courts treat it as Il civil
contract, only in the sense that contract
consent of parties,-precedes it, and is
essential to its validity, but when formed, it
is more than a civil contract, it is a relation.
an institution, affecting not merely the
parties like business contracts, but off spring
particularly and society generally. And
every State has always assumed to regulate
it, to declare who are capable of contracting
marriage, what shall be the duties and pri-
vileges, and how it shall be dissolved.
These things have never been left to the
discretion of individuals, but have been
regulated by law. Among other things our
marriage law declares, that the white and
colored races shall not intermarry. The
pretended marriage in this case was. there
fore, invalid, and the parties guilty of forni
cation and adultery.
Let this be certified, &C.
READE, ].
NOTE 1t is worthy of iemark, and the
fact indicates the moral Improvement of both
races, that since emancipation mulatto births
have almost entirely ceased.