Semi-weekly Louisianian. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1871-1872, 1872-02-11

ish constitution, Magma Charter. But
what is Magma Charter f? Simply
certain concessions wrung by barons
of England from an unwilling
monarch not an act of Parliament
nothing constitutional, in our sense
of the term simply declaration
of rights and such, sir, was the
Declaration of Independence. And
now, sir, 1 am prepared to insis,
that, whenever you are considering
the Constitution, so far as it con
Germs human rights, you must bring
it always to that great touch-stone
the two must go together, and the
Constitution can never be interpret
ed in any way inconsistent with the
Declaration. Show me any words
in the Constitution applicable tc
human rights, and I invoke at once
the great truths OF the Declaration
as the absolute guide in determining
their meaning. Is it question OF
power 4? Then must every word in
the Constitution be interpreted SC
that Liberty and Equality do moi
fail.
My excellent friend from Maine
takes notice of this. He goes back
to the early days when the Declare
ton was denounced as "a self-evi-
dent lie," and the Constitution was
interpreted always in the interest Of
slavery. Sir, I object to this rule
I protest against it with all my
mind and heart and soul. Insist
that just the opposite must prevail
and 1 start in the argument with
this assumption. I shall not make
a long argument, for the cause does
not require it. I desire to be brief.
You know the amendment, being
article thirteen:
"SEcTIoN 1. Neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for the crime whereof
the party shall have been duly con-
victed, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their
Jurisdiction.
"SEc. 2. Congress shall have pow
er to enforce this article by appro-
pirate legislation.
Here is an amendment abolishing
slavery. Does it abolish slavery
half, three quarters, or wholly? Here
I know no half, no three quarter; l
know nothing but the whole. And
I say the article abolishes slavery
entirely. It abolishes it root and
branch. It abolishes it in the gen.
eral and the particular 1t abolish
es it in length and breadth and then
in every detail. Am I wrong? Any
other Interpretation belittles the
great amendment and allows slavery
still to linger among us in some of
its insufferable pretensions. Sir, 1
insist upon thorough work. When
voted for that article 1 meant what
t said, that slavery should cease alb
'olutely, entirely, and completely.
But, sir, Congress has already given
is testimony as to the true mean
ng of this article. Shortly after its
.doption, it passed what is known
IS the civil rights law, by which the
courts of justice throughout this
country, State as well as national,
we're opened to colored persons,
nd they were authorized not only
o sue and be sued, but also to tes-
ify, an important right which had
'een denied most cruelty even in
n many of the Northern States,
making the intervention of the ma
ion necessary, precisely as it is ne
essary now. That law was passed
y both Houses of Congress, vetoed
y the President. and passed then
y two-thirds vote over the veto
f the President; and all done in
of this power.
Congress shall have power to en-
orce this article by appropriate leg
Station"
Remark, if you please, the energy
f that expression; I have often had
ccasion to call attention to it. 1t
; a departure from the old Ian
uage of the Constitution.
"The Congress shall have power
D make all laws which shall be
ecessary and proper for carrying