Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-12-25
SUMNER AND "FEES C0LORED
FEak,Dxys.sVHzEsS

EERk0V.GsTszENS.'
The citizen who voluntarily submits
to higher law is a slave in his soul.
1t abohshes all law and puts in its
place the mere force which law was
made to control.-Judge Jeremieh S.
Black.
Yesterday we examined the Civil
Rights Law as to its constitutionality
and reached the conclusion that it was
not strictly constitutional, and could
only be defended upon the acceptance
of the ignominious and slavish doctrine
of higher law" We showed that
the mere fact that the fourteenth
amendment prohibits the States from
making or enforcing laws abridging the
privileges and immunities of citizens,
did not empower Congress to arrogate
to the Federal Courts the exclusive and
perpetual jurisdiction Of private causes
arising under the prohibitory clause;
that such a construction Of the clause
was icentious Interpretation
and utterly untenable. The intent of
the amendment is to prevent class leg
islationIn the South againstthe blacks.
BY implication, Congress has power to
annual any discriminating law which
might be passed This far Congress
could rightfully go and no farther If,
for instance, State should neglect to
give any remedy at all to any of its cit
liens for the class of injuries referred
TO in the civil right s law an altogether
supposablc case, this would not be
positively hostile or class legislation.
1t would be lache or omission, and
does not fall within the pale of the pro-
hibition. The prohibition regards only
commission in the nature Of positively
hostile enactment. This is the plain
import Of the Constitution. But the
import of the civil rights act comprises
vastly more 1t would constantly sup
ply remedy to the black man, whether
he receive the injury through the work
ings Of discriminating State leg
islation, or through the failure
of State to supply any remedy at all
to any citizen, or whether the State is
at fault in no way at all either by omis-
sion or commission. Congress has,
therefore, enlarged the power which it
gets by implication through the four
teenth amendment, and this, says
Judge Story, is unconstitutional. And
yet, instead Of being called upon todis-
cuss the propriety Of abrogating it, we
are TO assume the melancholy task Of
combating strongly-backed measure.
now on foot, to supplement and confirm
the unwarrantable law. IF we were
reasoning with men not mad with
mania for that despotism which is
thought to be consecrated by higher
law, we should consider the argument
of unconstitutionality the most potent
that we could adduce. To those who
are not still blinded with mad enthusi-
asm for revolution, and to those who
have remaining any tolerable apprecla-
ton of law and order, veshould consid-
er this argument conclusive. Wcshall,
therefore, meet the; obdurate Radical
on his own meaner ground of disputa
ton, and maintain that the proposed
supplementary bill is impolitic and
mischievous. In the first place, this
bill defines more specifically, than the
old bill. what shall constitute the Of
Tense. 1t shall be the refusal by any
proprietor or directors Of a domestic
institution supported either in part or
wholly by public endowment, to admit
or accommodate citizens on account Of
race, color or previous condition Of
servitudc. 1t is defined at large in the
! bill. Why this definition? Does Mrs
Sumner suppose that any Intelligent
court would accept any definition Of
his or Of Congress as to the meaning Of
privileges and immunities" in
the fourteenth amendment: Is
he so ignorant Of the dis
tinction between the legisla-
tmc and Judiciary Of our
system Of government? 1t is
well known to the conlmonest petit
logger that it is the part of the judges
to declare the meaning Of a peoples
constitution, and no business of Con-
gress. Mr.. Summers supplementary
definitions, therefore, us torailway cars,
hotels, inns, theatres, public schools,
etc, are superduous, unless we may
suppose that he is little enoughto wish
to pander to the silly demand Of his
colorcd fellow-citizens, that the majes-
tic and biilowy phrase, privileges and
immunitics," may be expanded and
anpHfed on the statutc-booil, in order
that the world may run and read that
thevcdn do thisorthat, bat either choose
not or dare not. If this supposition be
correct, we would suggest that Mr..
Sumner have those glorious definitions
engraved upon tablets of brass and
hung up in the high places. He could
thus more fully appease the vanity
that makes 50 cxtravagant a demand.
This is no idle Jest either, for Mr.. But
Ter says that the law already exists,
and that the supplement gives no new
right. In the second place, the bill
provides different penalty. Here is
the innovation The existing statute
prcscribcs fine Of not more than s 900
or Imprisonment not more than year,
or both in the discretion Of the court.
The supplement proposes a fine Of
500 to $1,000, and allows the injured
party an action Of debt for damages
against the party who takes away the
privilege or immunity. 1t is in this
change that we are to lock for the