National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-02-12
THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.
A COHSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSION OF
THE IMPORTANT MEASURE.

IH6 LEI VAx<3HA AxdoOAOs |
a. N, M. REPLIES TO MIR. d. A. STRAhER
FORMER DECISIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT BEARING oN
THE PoINT-THE SUBJECT ONE FOR
STATE. NOT NATIONAL, LEGISLATION.
70 the Editor Of the National Republican:
SIN: The views entertained by Rev. DR.. Spear,
Of Brooklyn, N. Y, and published in the I"depen-'
deaf of the 10Th ult, on the civil rights question
and by the undersigned condensed and publisf I'D
IN TIE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN Of the It'll ,est.
has. am glad to see, effected the object ersms.
rfly and almost solely had in view-the awaken
ing of public attention to the considers don OF the
question whether Congress has the O. ion-.l
right to pass the supplemental civ A rights bal
presented by the House Judiciary Commrttee.
In your issue of the 10th instsn & appears DENIM
eatory views entertained and rItsered against the
article above referred to by committee who PRO
pose . series of mass meet sgs in tho interest of
civil rights also comm aaication, signed d A.
Straker, which invites Try more Immediate atten-
ton in which h the fo' flowing expression ut is
not to the reverend ge1tlemanNs views directly
that ask space IN your colImns to reply, but
mere 90 to the ind srsement of G. N. NJ" IA this
he awards TO me prominence in this matter en-
tarely grauuitous and unsousht, and assure him,
rs we'll az others, readers End patrons 81 your
cellept ,aper, that my chief object in presenting
an sptome of the articleiH gu sstion Uaseo awaken
aabiic consideration TO the constitutisnality of
naticra al Legislation upon this SUBJECT not to pro-
yoksan;ag onistic views, newspaper iosltroversy,
sr to engender hostile or
ININreAL YELLING,
and most respectfully assure Nj. St-aker that
shsll not be diverted from the purpose have in
view by the framing and protfering Of side or col
lateral issues foreign to the subjeetEnder discus
The nrOR0StiOn laid down in the article
;pablished on the.rh instant was, that the Gen
eral Government is one of enumerated powers
(which alike define and limit its sphere of action,
and therefore cossnot do what isnot authorised
by the Constitutions: whereas State Legislatures
they are restrained by the United States Const-
tuition by the constitutions Of their respective
States.
Not deeming it pertinent to the subject to no.
tice all that is contained in Mr. IS article, with
out any dsrrspect to him or the matter omitted, i
will advert to what he remarks is my Endorsement
Of the fourteenth amendment wherein IL states:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which
shaIl abridgc the privileges or inmunities of cit-
gems of the United States.'' The point urged by
was that the bill, in its prohibitions and penal
sens Interpretations, and makes certain acts Of
fences; whereas the clause above cited is simply
s. to this is: :" Suppose this view to be true, what
objection can there be to an enlarging statute,
deearatory, remedial and penal in It's ns tnre and
-cOnstruction?'' / answer, the objection lays in
the organic law Of the land
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
But he goes still further in saying "that the
powers of Congress must grow and extend with
The wants of the people" Indeed if such theory
were once to be adopted, what necessity for
Nxnended constitutions. or, am almost pursuaded
at ALL Il by
humbfy ask him where he gets authority for
such extended fllimitable legislation in our na-
tional Legislature? 1t cannot BE found in the
National Constitution or any OF Its amendments
r e Of hs 0 anu
State Legislature. If he would recognize these
marked differences there would not appear much |
divergence of opinion between us upon the ques- |
tion at issue; and will here invite his and the
public attention to two prominent cases decided
BY the United States Supreme Court, having |
relative bearing upon the question OF national |
and State Legislation. Did space Pemit would
also like to cite the views Of Chancellor Kent and
Chief Justice Shaw upon this subject as
AN ELEMENTARY QUESTION. |
Gibbons VS.. Ogden, Wheaton, 2os, Chief |
IN, IN Marshall, speaking Of inspection laws
Justie. 1.-THE States, says: They form a por |
ton Of tina. most adra In administered
winch can De Nmselyes. Inspection laws. quar-
6y the States tn flaws Of every description as
OF . State and those VIII Harts. No direct gen,
fer. ser over these object. ,main subject to |
eral Pc. nse9Tently they l.
State legislation. --of The City o.. e defend.
The other is the cas-, ~ this case Il. with a
vs.. Miles, II Peters, lo2. = to comply, very
statute Of New York which req.- - port !
master Of q vessel arriving from torei, oil an
That Of New York i, ety to report shg n nas ARR,
that this was an invasion of the exclusive right Of
Congress to regulate commerce. 1t was conceded
The commercial Intercourse between the United '
States and foreign countries. But notwtthstand-l
ing this it was held to be an exercise Of the police
,pie off and unaffected 4
by the clause of the Constitution which conferred
on Congress the right to regulate commerce.
Numerous other cases bearing upon the same
point nigh: be cited, did space permit
Now, the Supreme Court Of the United states
"a court Of hnal resort) has by
SOLEMN JUDGMENT,
In the New Orleans slaughter-house case, which,
have carefully read, made use of the following t
Language: sit is quite clear, then, that there is
of the United States and citizenship
Of a state which are distinct Of each other, &c;
such being the case, does it not appear palpable
and conclusive that citizen Of the United states
would be governed by the laws OF the SnIed G
The court further says "If, then, there Is DIFF
ference between the privileges and mmunities pc
and those belonging to the citizen Of the State, as
Such the latter must rest their security and pro
lection where they have heretofore rested, ior
they are not embraced by this paragraph oil the
amendment"
aNor shall any State deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the eGua, protection oil the laws
npon this the court says: I'm the light of these
amendments and the peryading purpose OF them,
: it is not difficult TO give meaning to
this clause. The existence Of laws in the states
where the newly-ernancipated negroes resided,
which Disseminated with gross
INJUSTICE AND HARDSHIP
against them as o class, was tine evil to be RENE
died by this clause, and by 1t such laws are for
biuden."
"If however the States did not conform their
laws to its requirements, then by the NTH section
Of the article Of amendment Congress was author,
lied to enforce it by suitable legislation" And
they further remark: 1--WE doubt very much
whether any action of State not directed by way
Of Discrimination, against the negroes as class,
or on account of their race. will not be held TO |
come within the purview OF this provision: II is
80 clearly O provision for that race and that
emergency that a strong case would be necessary |
for its application to any other"
In conclusion, i will readily concede to the Hon
Mr. Elliot all the 'smasterly" and illegal ability
20 grapple the illusion contended for by Mr.. 5. |
Yet should still doubt HIS ability" to fritter
away the solemn adjudication of the highest and
yupreme judicial tribunal known under our Ma
tonal Constitution. u. N. NJ
WASHINGTON, February IL, l6i3.
AILBURV ON AARON BURR.
The following correspondence will explain IT. |
Self:
WASHINGTON, d. c., Feb. 10, 1874. |