The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1871-04-22


scnded that Congress had the pow
ke. by enactment to enforce these
PROVISIONS Of limitation, but that
,.eir enforcement was left wholly
- the courts. and that, therefore.
tae provision Of the fourteenth ar.
,cle Of amendments, that mo State
hall make or enforce any law which
hall abridge the privileges or.ini@
f.unities Of citizens OF the UnitssI
'tates," DC, IL also mere li,nisse,
fon upon the powers Of the State,
I'D not . grant Of power TO Cassa
ress, and consequently cannot be-
aforced by Congressional legisla--a
on. This is plausible srau
cent, but it is utterly unsound.
II it be true that it eau not be-
reteoded that Congress had tie
'wer to enforce those provision
limitstion 10 the original Con-
i,u'ion. and for the purposo. 81
'is discussion | may safely admit
y. il IS because the powers OF Cor
ress we're specifically defined; a. r
.e power to enforce these limita
a.oi,s upon the powers of Stata
as not embraced within these
pecified powers OF Congress. The
amers OF the original CoDstItG-
N were content. according 10 the
.-crr Of my colleague, to impose
se limitations, bnt gave no power
Congress to enforce them
Bl, is that the case with refer
ace 10 the so called limi.atiens
uni in the fourteenth AMI ff-
-enth articles of amendments? NJ
.r, becauss it is expressly provi-
ed that "Congress shall b we
,rer to enforce the provisions of
.ese articles by appropriate legis
,tion. The first section of tlI
'urteenth article contains these
mutations, il my colleague will
Ill them by that name, namely:
ono State shall make or enforce any law
.hich shall sbridge the privilege. or immu
3.ies of citisens of the United States; nor
Sail eny State deprive any person of life.
NV. nor deny 70 any person the equal pro-
;ction Of the laws
And the first section Of the fir-
| enth article provides that
"The right of citizens of the United States
vote shall not be abridged by any State on
.,ccount of racs, color, or previous C, ndilion
e servitude."
And the fifth section Of the -four
seenth article provides that Con-
.,ress shall have power to enforce
:. he provisions of that article, and
,he second section Of the iiftcenth
article contains the same provision
with reference to tnat article. There
ls, therefore, no analogy between
The two casea. and consequently
~n argument based upon a suppo-
"ed or assumed analogy is unsound
and without force.
Now, sir. the friends Of this mea-
.'ure having been challenged to
show any warrant for it in the Con
stitution, I want to examine it i
little. A great deal Of what has
)een said on the other side hns
neen preiicated upon misstate.
.nents Of its provisions. Gentle-
men on the other side state, taro'
misconceptien OF it, what it is
aot tor what it is, and argue from
his false basis against it. The
first section provides in substance
that if any person, under color oi
any State law, &C., shall deprive
any other person Of any of the
rights, privileges or immnnities
secured to him by the first section
Of the fourteenth article OF amend
ments. the person so doing shsll
be liable 10 the party thus injured
in an action at law.
What are the privileges and i'm
munities secured by this first sec
len Of the fourteenth article? TIE
language is:
'No State shall make or enforce any law
which all abridge the privileges or imuu-
mites Of citizens OF the United States: nor
shall any State deprive any person OF lie.
liborty. or property without due process OF
law, nor deny u any person within its iuri2-
Now. sir, the right to freedom
or immunity from slavery OR in
voluntary servitude is constitu
tional right OF all citizens of tha
United States. The privilege Of
tie ballot, without regard to race
color. or prev loss condition OF ser
vitude, is also secured to citizeB3
of the Unitei States by the Goa
stitution. Under the Constitute
any citizen Of one State may make
himself citizen of another State
bv becoming resident thereof -
These are fundamental rights or
privileges, and no State has any
right by its laws to deny them. -
Suppose, now, that State should
pass law authorizing slavery, or
denying the right to vote to per-
sons OF color, or, as blush to say
was the case in the State of Ind
ana, forbiddtng certain class or
persons from entering the S ate,
and forbidding under heavy PEN
alties any one from giving employ
ment to any such pers On, and sup.
pose that, under color of such a
State law, any person should de
prive another Of his liberty. or of
his vote, or prevent him from be
coming . resident of the S ate,
this would be deprivation of con
stitu'ional right and privilege. -
The State has no right to pass aay
such law. No one has any right
to avail himself Of any such law
To prevent the exercise of these