Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1871-04-01

but there must he clear case Of denial of gov
eminent. We cannot interfere to deal with the
[ incidental evils which attend upon republican
| government; but we should interfere where, we
being the judges whether the case exists or not,
on our oathS responsible to the great tribunal
of the American people, wherever these evils
have attained such degree as amounts to the
destruction, to the overthrow, to the denial TO
| large classes of the people of the blessings OF
republican government altogether.
| Another error, as it seems to me, Mr.. Speak
err, is to suppose that congress in the exercise OF
this great power must either let the state alone
altogether, or take entire possession of all its
powers and insrumentalties of government,
and dsplace the state government. But there
is nothing in the constitution that for moment
favOrS the idea. We have right 10 limit our
interference to the extent of the evil. If a par
ticulaT class of persons are denied their civil
rights permanently aud as a rule IN any state,
we have q right to interfere simply to protect
those rights, leaving the republican government,
so far as it is enforced in regard TO others, I'M
touched where we can,
One further remark desire to make on this
point. 1t is sometimes suggested that the first
section of the fourteenth amendment aims
solely at unlawful acts by the state authorities.
Its language is:
mo state shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of ctl-
zens of the United States; shall any state de-
prve any person OF life liberty, or property with.
out due process of law, nor deny to any person
within its Jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws"
Now, sir, what does the constitution mean
when it authorizes congress to interfere by Gap
propriate legislation in the case of the denial
by state 10 any person within its jurisdiction
of the protection Of the laws2 Iflt had been the
purpose of the American people, in accepting
this article, to ployde merely for the case Of an
affirmative formal exercise OF power by the state
in derogation of civil rights, that last clause
would have been unnecessary, because the pre-
ceding part had provided that f'no state shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States" But the provision goes on to
say that no state shall "deny tn any person
within its Jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws"
Now, 1t is an etfectual denial by state of the
the equal protection of the laws when any class
of officers charged under the laws with their ad,
mlnistration permanently and as g rule refuse
to extend that protection. Ii every sheriff in
South Carolina refuses TO serve writ for col
ored man, and those sherifs arekeptiH office year
after year by the people of South Carolina, and
no verdict against them for their failure Of duty
| can be obtained before South Carolina jury,
the state of South Carolina, through the class Of
onlcers who are its rep sentatives to afford the
| equal protection of the laws TO that class of
| citizens, has denied that protection. If the
| Jurors OF South Carolina, constantly, and as a
rule, refuse to do justice between man aud man
where the rights of a PARTICULAR class of its citi-
zens are c9neefned, and that state affords by its
| legislation no remedy, that Is as much denial
TO that class of citizens of the equal protection
OF the laws as If the state itself puton its statute
| DOCK statute enacting that 10 verdict should
| be rendered in the c1urIs of that state in favor
| of this class of citizens.
It is said it was said by the gentleman from
Indiana MIR, Kerr yesterday, that the states
| may, IN general, as rule, be trusted with the
1 of 1
| more dangerous TO permit the general g0yern~
| ment 70 determine when il IS necessary that it
| should ipteNieIe with the local concerns Of the
states, than to run the risk that the states may
| sometimes, without cheek, Cypress particular
| individuals and classes. 1t seems to me that
many intelligent and sensible persons look only
| at one side of this question. They aecuStom
! themselves to look st the supposed danger to
! civil liberty nom the possible encroaehments of
the central power, and leave wholly cut of view
not only the probability but the actual expert
ence OF the deprivation of large numbers of per-
sous OF their natural rights under the authority
ofthe states when the protection Of tho aaiion is
not extended 10 them. The question is not
| whether majority Of the people in a majority
CT the states are likely be attached TO and obi
to secure their own hAelties, The Question is
not whether The majority of tie people in every
stats are not likely to desire to secure their own
| rights It's, whether majority of the people
IN every state are sure to be so attached to the
principles Of oNl freedom and civil Justice as to
ee as much desirous of preserving the liberties
| OIL DINERS as their own, and TO insure that under
no temptation of party spirit under no political
excitement, under DO jealousy of race or caste,
! WI ihe majority either in numbers or strength
IN any state seek to deprive the remainder of the
population Vi their civil rights.
Now, what has been our experience In this
matter! In many states Of llis Union, ever
| since they came into existence as part of the
Union, ell rights, civil, political, and personal,
have been denied TO one part OF their popula.
| tlon. so far was there frqm being any tendency
to correct this evii under the operation of eX-
lsting sa'e censti uttons, that the civil right of
4 discussing temperately the rightulness or ex-
| pedlency of this state of things and the politi-
cal right Of voting to put an end to it was also
| denled, with penalty of (mob) punishment or
| death to any person of the dominant race whose
sense OF public duty might so incline him. 1t is
true this penalty was not expressed in terms on
the statute books; but it was executed by the
. niGb with certainty far more complete and
| terrible than attends upon due process of law
I under any American administration. More
| than this; when it was found that the associa-
| ton under the general government with other
| states where attachment to civil liberty pre-
vailed endangered this state Of things, the peo-
| pie of these states sought to destroy the nation
| itself raEheE than run the risk that in the re-
| mote future the indirect influence Of this asso-
| clatlon might overthrow the tyranny they had
| AlAG pIillClDdl DANCER bl1t nelageS
us to-day is from the effort within the states to
deprive considerable numbers of persons of the
| civil and equal rights which the general govern
ment is ende8yGrina to secure to them,
! now, Mr., Speaker, it is clear that, until a
| majority of the whole people shall have become
indifferent to the principles of civil liberty there
| will be no serious and permanent danger of en-
| ereachments by the national power upon that of
{ e states for the purpose of sn6Vertlng their
| liberties. Such encroachments must be con.
| CURED 10 by the house, senate, and president
Aueh concurrence can hardly be anticipated
| unless majority of the people IN a majority of
the states shall d. sire its preparation and be pre-
| pared, for its accomplishment, TO override aud
! defy the resistance of the national judiciary.
| When that state of things is reached all eonsti-
| tutional barriers viii, of course, have become
| useless and impotent, But it is said that tn e
! exercise of particular political power soon he
| comes habitual and attractive, that if the ma
| tiona government is to determine when the
preservation of civil liberty requires Its interior
| ence in state concerns, il will ne Continually
tempted to find pletexts for such interference,
| which, first resorted to on grave occasions, will
| be used in time of less magnitude until at last
| the whole of the reserved powers of the states
| will be destroyed.
But little consideration Will, think demon
| strate that these fears are futile. There is
greater danger to liberty in a single act of per-
| manent oppression incorporated into the law
| anywhere under the states of this republic than
| that the vast majority of the people will inter-
fere for the destruction of local interests. Powers
| OF local legislation cG1 never be conveniently
welded at the center, and this inconvenience
will prevent the central government from pert
| manently desiring them. Such an assumption
will always be unpopular, always will be resist-
ed by the majority in the state in question,
| whose good will the party in power will desire
TO conclliate, Hundreds Of men are interested
in administering state powers where one is
clothed with national Office, and it will be the
| interest Of the former to maintain @nd augment
the powers on which their own dignity and all-
thority depends. Gentlemen talk as il the
states were something foreign to the nation
| The majority of the American people is the ma
iority also il the States. The reserved rights of
the states can never be invaded unless that ma
jority shall be indifferent to the obligations of
| duty or the value of civil liberty, When that
| time comes of course al discussion of constitu-
| tiona pGWer on Constitutional restraint will be
| idle. Until that time com-s the duty of defend
ing their own civil rights will best be lodged in
the last resort, in the supremest end most august
authority known aTong men, the great Ameri-
can people.