Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-08-12


constitutional that Federal interference
In State affairs is unconstitutional;
that Credit Mobilier and back salary
steals are unconstitutional; that
Grants present salary of $4,000 a
year is unconstitutional; and that we
might fill this page with a partial list
of similar things done by the party of
centralism, which are equally and
giaringly unconstitutional.
In a recent sitting of the Federal
Circuit Court at New Orleans, Justice
Bradley delivered an opinion in which
the following occurs:
There can be no constitutional
legislation of Congress for directly en-
forcing the privileges and immunitiesI
of citizens of the United States by
original proceedings In the courts of
the United States, where the only con-
stitutional guaranty of such privileges
and immunities Is that no State shall
pass any law to abridge them.
The Commercial argues that this de-
cision, or rather this obiter dietlfm in
the course of decision on an entirely
different subject, covers the principle
precisely of the Civil Rights bill 1t is
decent law, we grant, SO far as it goes.
Uttered on the Circuit Bench, it is
great strain on legal logic to deduct
from it the opinion of the Supreme
Court. Uttered obiter dictum, it is I'M
safe to apply it to entirely new
matter, as all practical attorneys
know. Bradley is perhaps the weakest
member of the Supreme Bench The
Commercial ought to recollect its own de-
nunciations when a Radical Senate
stuffed" the Supreme Court, placing
Strong and this Bradley on the Bench
for the plain purpose of overriding
Chief Justice Chase's decision on the
legal tender act. Suppose the entire
Supreme Court had uttered this dictum
OF Bradley's, as it had done in other
words on other matters before,
that would be no guarantee
of what a sCourt, packed by
a Republican President and Senate,
would decide ON the new matter of
Civil Rights. We have still to face the
fact that nearly two-thirds of the pres
emit Senate have declared the Civil
Rights bill constitutional, and that this
Senate has the joint power to pack and
vitiate the Supreme Court, by increas-
ing its membership, etc, as they have
done before.
But, viewing the matter in its best
ight-taking for granted that the
dummy Bradley on the SupremeB Bench
reflects the Supreme Court, that theview
announced by him would be followed
to its logical conclusion, and that the
Radical majority In Congress, after
committing themselves to this Civil
Rights project, would let the court take
its course untrammeled. In this rose
colored view, what would be the prac-
teal situation. Simply this-the Civil |
Rights bill would be enforced for years,
and our school system would be swamp
ed beyond redemption, perhaps, before
decision could he reached IN that /
court. The legal tender act was not |
declared unconstitutional till seven |
years after Its passage, and then the |
court was RECONSTRUCTED" to reverse |
the decision. The unconstitutional cot |
ton tax has not yet been Fepudiated. |
The process of remcdying unconsti-
tutional enactments is frightfully slow.
The wiser course is to prevent their en-
actulent whenever possible. An uncon-
stitutional Civil Rights bill may do all |
the dirty political work it Is framed for,
and incalculable mischief besides, long
before its unconstitutionality be judi
cially decided.
Not 10 put too fine a pointon it, Rad
ical excuses In the South on the one
hand, and the admirable conduct of the
Southern people on the other, In their
personal and industrial relations with
the blacks, have alarmed the Radical
leaders, lest matters should resume
their natural condition In this section,
and the negro be weaned from his
blind obedience TO Radical popes.
These eight hundred thousand votes
must not be trihed with, in view of the
coming Presidential election. They
must be secured at al hazards. To
effect this object the leaders could de-
wise nothing better than the legacy left
them by Charles Sumner, though he
died disgraced by the party. 1t is one
of the trump cards in the election of
1876. 1t is on the speakers table, to
be passed by the Radical majority of
the House when it meets in De.
cember. Nothing can possibly pre-
vent its passage by this Congress
but the veto of Grant. The inaliena-
bic rights of social freedom hang on
the vaciIlating will of one mamie
whom Jim Fisk sptly described as ''the
national hog"-a man whose main mo-
tive is money, judging from two Presi-
Dental terms. His attitude on the
question is regarded by some as uncer-
tain, though bis last message closed
with the recommendation of exactly
such bill. II be is really undecided,
his consent may be bought 10y third
term, or a Long Branch cottage. But,
were he like Caesars wife, above sus.
picion, it is not the part of free.
men, with free ballots in their
hands, to allow their dearest and
most sacred rights to depend q the
will of any one man, however great or