Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1871-05-04
Enforcement of the Fourteenth
Amendment.

REMARKS OF Mr.. WILLARD ON TIE
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCES Ool
,,Irrrr ON THE KU .KLUx BILL, D.
IIyFRED IN THE HOUSE OF REPR
sFNTATIvEs, APRIL 10, 1871.
Mr. Speaker, as have been unable
agree to the conclusions which the CON
mittee of conference in their report has
presented to the House, it is due to my
self that should state some of the reason
which lead me to that disagreement.
disagree with the committee, first, i
Welding to the Senate in the amendmen
fixing the limitation of time to tn
writ of hd6eaS corpus at the end of tn
next regular session of Congress. / deer
the provision for the suspension of tina
writ, one of such Importance, deem tn
writ of habeaS corpus of so much value t
individual liberty, that when we are no
in the presence of an armed rebellion
when we are not in thu presence of wha
we can now declare by legislative act /
be rebellion at all, il we place the dis
erection in any man to suspend the writ
we ought ont of regard to the safeguard
OF personal freedom provided by the con
stitutional Limitation on the suspension
of the privilege, to name a fixed and pre-
else limit of time beyond which the exer
else of the discretion given to the Presiden
shall not extend. While therefore, | an
prepared TO fix the limit at the 1st oil
July, 1879. or the 1st of August, or even
the 1st of September of that year, or any
me which would carry it beyond the
usnail adjournment of the next regular
session of Congress, l prefer that we
shonld yet "a absolute limitation, a point
of time beyond which the writ of ha6eas
corpus cannot be suspended except by fur
Their Legislation.
regret that the committee of confer
ence on the part of the House did not in
sist upon that provision as it stood when
the bill was sent to the Senate. | am not
particular about any early date, but il
seems to me that the time sbSuld be
fixed definitely in the bill itself, so that
we may not, by the device of a recess of
Congress give a longer time for the exer-
cise of the presidential discretion than
what the bill itself now seems to give.
Now, let me come to the amendment
which for convenience has been called the
Sherman amendment, the essential amend
ment put upon the bill in the Senate.
ana not prepared to. and | shall not here
enter upon any discussion of the consti.
tutional power Of Congress to resort to
legislation of this character. But it seems
very clear to me that If there is in the
Constitution any power vested in Congress
to resort to a provision like this for the
punishment of offenses, or for giving re-
dress to persons injured, this is very clear
ly an unwise and improper exercise of
that power. So far as l know, the ex-
ercse of such power by any government
l. Ii he -,
upon which the penalty is visited, as by
this section. has proved fsithless to it's
duties, when it has not performed the OBJ
legations that rest upon it, and which 1t
- ~ abundantly able to perform, if it had
tbo Opposition to do so.
% mo- - the old law of England, if the
bnndrsd par,, ~rmed all that they were re-
CURED to perfol.'n ~ good citlzens they
were no longer lia.""' and properly
enough; and it was bec,"us they conlo
not Justly be made any longer hao,e that
the Limitation was fixed there. there Is
in us all sense of justice. which Is
stronger than even constitutional law
itself. In our enactments, and in the sd-
mihistration of law, Legislatures and
oourts often stop at barriers which the
Constitution has not placed in their way,
because Jney sec buhI IuslICe COhpSt0
them to stop at that point.
Now, sir, the Constitution has not i'm
posed, we have not by the Constitution
imposed any duty upon county, city,
parish, or any other subdivision of State,
70 enforce the laws. to provide protection
ior the people, to give them equal rights.
privileges and immunities. The Consti-
tntion, in effect, says that no State shall
deny to its citizens the equal protection
of the laws, and | understand that that
declaration, that prohibition, applies only
to the States, so far as political or mum
cipal action ia concerned But the State, |
within its boundaries, has the creation
aud the control of the laws for the pro-
lection OF the people. What can the
county do? What can the parish do !?
w ,,et can a city do, to give me the equal
Dro+ec ion of the laws? The city and the
county h ave no power except the power
that il given them by the State. They
cannot keep violence away from me; they
cannot protect m in my rights, except as
the State has clothed them with the power
to do So: and for the enforcement of the
laws of the State they get no aid, no au-
thoritv, no power whatever from the
United States.
In most of the States-it ia so in mine,
[ kuew-the counties and the towns have
no power whatever in this regard except
as those powers have been conferred upon
them by the State, and these powers can
be taken from them at any time by the
State. If these powers are not given to
them by the State, or if they hold them
only at the will of the State, what justice
is there in making the town, city, or par
ish liable for not protecting the property
of citizens, when perhaps no laws for its
pro,ecton exists. for not giving me pro-
lection, when they have not been clothed
by the State with the right and power to
give me protection
Thus it seems to me-snd, as / said be-
fore, am only arguing this point in the
light of Justice, and not as a strict ques-
tion of constitutional law-that we are
uposing upon a community an obligation
tba we have no right to impose upon
tbar, that in Justice we cannot impose
Ion tbo 70 for the reason that such NUM- i
oinoIit;ee -e, as such, powerless to either
r,aka or enfo, 'ce the laws of the State or
the United Sta, >es. We should never i'm
pose an obligation upon community
ubep We do not an, cannot give that l
the power to discharge that l
obligation. We shoula not require
county or a city TO protect persona In their
lives or properly until we co ufer also mp
on them the power to furnish that pro-
lection.
hold that this duty of protection, If it t
rests nywhere, rests with the State. and !
that if there ia to be any liability visited
upon anybody for failure to perform that
duty, such liability should be brought {
home TO the State Hence, in my judg- t
nent, this section would be liable to very 5
much less obiections both in regard to its
justice and iss coustitutionality, if it pro
yided that il in any State the offenses
pamed in this section were committed, 6
-uit might be brought against the State, r
'rtpapt obtained, and payment of the
"a. sgt might be enforced upon the
udRhl II ths State.
re"sury a "a another objection TO this [