New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-04-16
ENRORCEMENTOF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.

speech Of Hon. L. A. Sheldon of LOuisi-
ana, Delivered in the House of Repre-
sentatives, hnrch 81, 1871.
The House having under consideration
the bill House resolution No. 32Ol, to en-
fore the provisions of the fourteenth amend
ment to the constitution of the United
States, and for other purposes
Mr.. Sheldon said: Mr.. Speaker, in cOnsid-
ering the bill which has been reported by the
special committee of which the gentleman
from Ohio MR. Shellabargerl is chairman,
the question which meets US at the threshold
is the constitutional power of Congress to
eBaet it into a law. From the beginning of
the government to this day there have been
disputes upon some question or other as to
the extent of the powers of the general gov
eminent. Complaint on the one hand that
the government was "mere rope of sand"
and fear on the other of too much central
izatioQ. the tendency of every government.
to increase its authority, and jealousy of the
dignity and supremacy of the State govern
ments, have kept the nation in a turmoil of
disputations, without having fixed in the
public mind the point where the authority
of the State government ends and where
that of the national government begins. In
consequence of our dual system it is proba-
BILE that we shall always have conflicting
opinions on this subject.
MY fear of Capitalization and despOtism is
not so great as my apprehension OF con-
luBlOu anu dudICH1s 1nS IlSllG W hNGy W
own and possess property, and exercise the
civil and political franchises, are the dear
est interests of mankind, and 1t is the high
est duty of the government to provide means
to protect and secure every citizen in the
undisturbed enjoyment of these rights.
The government of the United States was
established not merely to declare the true
principles of liberty, but to provide for
their maintenance and perpetuation. 1t
would be gravely defective if it were not
empowered to enforce respect for all the de-
clared rights of its citizens. The power to
protect ought to correspond with the extent
of the rights conferred. Whether the gen
eral government possesses the powers which
it seems it ought to possess is the question
Prior to the adoption of the late amend
ments, the constitution contained restrictive
clauses, and some that are considerably lati
tudinous. The tenth article of amendments
may be regarded as restrictive, but it leaves
open to discussion the question as to what
powers are delegated to the federal govern
ment. So with the celebrated resolutions
of 1898 and 1889 Although proclaimed as
vel! defined and ,infallible political tenets,
they allowed as liberal a construction of the
powers delegated by the constitution as was
necessary to sustain the views of the most
ardent centralizatiOnist.
1t is fair to presume that the convention
in framing and the States in ratifying the
constitution, understood it to embrace the
powers to accomplish all the objects for
which it is declared to have been ordained
and established, especially when these OBJ
iects are consistent with the largest liberty
and highest security of the people. Some
of those objects were to Establish Justice"
ENSURE domestic tranquility" and pro
mote the general welfare" The rights Of
the citizens have been more specially de-
fined, if not enlarged, by the late amend
ments, and there iscertainly conferred upon
Congress the power to enforce them by leg
islatiop. 1t must be apparent that these
amendments enlarge the power of the gov
ernment in controlling the action of the
States, and believe that 1T can extend its
powers, through its courts, in times of peace,
directly to the individual citizen who is de-
prived of his rights, privileges and immu-
mites, whether through the positive act or
the default of the State authqsiaieF.
Section four of article four the consti-
tuition imposes upon the UnlleA Rates the
positive obligation, among dsteF Things, to
protect the States against invasion, and on
application of the legislature or the eXecu-
tive, against domestic violence. This has
been construed into limitation of power.
| regard it as an obligation or duty. 1t
was necessary to impose this duty for the
State may at times not have any means to
suppress domestic violence, as the militia
may be wholly under the control Of the
United States.
1t evidently was not contemplated that
any State government would refuse to pro-
tect its citizens or neglect to make the at
| tempt. The provisions obligating the gov
| eminent to act on the application OF the
| State was undoubtedly framed under the
pleasing presumption that the State author
| tiles would act in the best of faith, and
| that the application would be made emily
| when the State governments were unable to
! overcome the resistance to their authority.
| Suppose the State governments are undis-
posed to act in the suppression Of disorders,
| or refuse or neglect to punish for crimes
against the citizens of the United States,
| where is there relief2 In such case has the
nation no power; is the government under
no obligation to go to the rescue OF the in
! iuredl The people of one State have an in-
| terest in the preservation of peace and
order in another. The right to migrate and
| to engage in legitimate traffic belongs to
| every citizen. The interests of the people
| of all the States are so interviewer that
| violence and disorders in one are injurious
| to all. If the meanest citizen wanders into
foreign countries he is followed every
where by the protecting power of the whole
nation. No act has been more univer-
sally praised than the rescue of Martin
Koszta from the prison of the Austrians
| The bosom of every American swells with
pride when he cOntemplates the act of ma
| tiOnal devotion to him who was only an in
ohoate citizen of the republic. Shall it be
said thst the citizen may be wrongfully de-
prived of his life, liberty and property in
his own country and at his own homestead,
and the national arm can not be extended
to him because there is State government
whose duty it is to afford him redress, but
refuses or neglects to discharge that dutyi
Such theory may be palpable to the minds
of men who have been too much educated
in the technicalities which make a remedy
depend upon whether the form of action is
trespass or case, but it must be impalpable
logic, indeed, tG those whose lives, liberties
and property are all at the mercy of organ
lied bands of marauders who can safely
defy the power or command the inactivity
of the State authorities.
In saying what have thus far, it hal
been my purpose merely to combat thos'
positions which, if correct, might, in my
Judgment, deprive the people Of all protec
ton in those rights which it is our bOas
that we possess. Contingencies may hap
pen, when we least expect them, which MAJ
imperil them all. Local prejudices ma.
become SO strong and violent that the,
may overturn that sense of justice whicl
we fOndly hope, however, may ever domi
nate in the bosOms of all our rulers. w
well understand the influence of pOpula
sentiment, under elective governments
upon those who depend upon the popula
will for place and power. Governors, judge
and juries give way to q mania which some
2 times seizes hold of the popular mind
Preiudiees and passions, which make me
: forget their duties, are more likely to b
local than national. 1t is better, therefore
2 | to have a government1ess local and NOR