South Branch intelligencer. [volume] (Romney, Va. [W. Va.]) 1830-1896, 1873-05-02

repose on their old solid foundation. This
is the substance of the Supreme Court de-
cisions just rendered. We quote the two
passage from the opinion 10 which this is
set forth without the haziness which over
spreads so much of its reasoning:
"was IL the purpose Of the trainers OF the four
tenth amendment by The simple declaration
that no State shall make or enforce any laws
which shall abridge the privileges and immuni-
ties Of citizens Of the United States, 10 transfer
the security and protection OF all the civil rights
which we have mentioned from the States TO the
Federal Government Aud where il is declared
that Congress shall have power to enforce that
article, trds interded 10 bring trithiH the porer
Of Congress The entire domain Of eirH rights here
fofore belonging exclusively 10 The States 2
"All this and more must follow If this propo-
sition Of the plsintiffs in error be sonnd for
not only these rights subject to the control
Of Congress whenever, in its discretion, any of
them are supposed to be abridged by State
legislation, but that BODY may also pass laws in
advance, limiting and resisting tue exercise OF
legislative power by the States in their most or
binary and usual functions, rs in its judgment
or discretion !. may think proper on all such
subjects. And still further, such a construction,
followed by the reversal of the judgments OF the
Supreme Court Of Louisiana in these cases. roud
constitute thus Court perpetual upon all
legislation Of the States The eirii rights Of ITS
oirn citizens, teh authority 10 nuiiify such Il did
not approve as consistent with those rights
they existed at the time of the adoption of this
amendment. The argument, we admit, is not
always the most conclusive where il draws from
the consequences urged against the adoption Of
u particular construction Of an instrument. But
when, as in the case before us, these consequent
ces are so serious, SO far-reachiug and pervsd-
ing, so create departure from the structure and
spirit OF our institutions; when the effect is TO
fetter and degrade the State governments by
subjecting them to the control of Congress in
the exercise Of powers heretofore universally
coded to them OF the most ordinary and fuuda-
mental character when, in fact, il radically
changes the whole theory Of the relations OF the
State and Federal governments to each other,
and Of both these governments to the people
the argument has force that is irresistible in the
absence of language which expresses this pur-
pose too clearly to need construction.
ave are convinced that no such results were
intended by the Congress which proposed these
amendments, nor by the Legislatures of the
States which ratified them"
"ln the light of the history of these amend.
ments and the pervading purpose OF them which
we have already discussed, il is not difficult 10
give meaning To this clause. The existence of
laws in the States where the newly emanc ipated
negroes resided, which Disseminated with gross
injustice and hardship against them as class,
WAS the end to be reInedied by this clause and
by IL snch laws are forbidden. But If The States
did not conform their laws to its requirements
then by the fifth section of the article Congress
was authorized TO enforce il by suitable legisla-
ton. We doubt very much whether any action
OF State not directed by way of discI imiaatio
/ against the negro race rs a class, or on account
OF their race will ever be held IA cause within
the purvew of this provision. 1t is so clearly
| a provision for that race and that emergency
that strong case would be necessary for It's ap-
Ihcation TO any other. But as il is n State that
is 10 he dealt with, and not the validity OF its
laws, we may safely leave that matter until Con-
gress shall have exercised its power, some
case Of State oppression by depial of equal jus.
tce in its courts shall demand decision Mt our
| hands. We find no such case as in this obe be-
fore US, and do not deem it necessary to go owe r
the argument again as il may have relation to
this particular clause OF the mendment."
That the Court did not strike a BIDDER
note in declaring this sound doctrine is to
be accounted for by their consciousness
that they were running counter to the i'm
peiuous hostility of the Republican party
TO the constitutional rights Of the States
But though the judges speak with bated
breath, they nevertheless bear witness to
the true faith on this great subject Nee
| York HOrLl