The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-12-01
to try any offence abridging any right of
any citizen of the United States ON dny ac-
count; and the indictments at bar would
give jurisdiction to this court over the
offancao cha rood

any citizen of the United States ON any &C.
count; and the indictments at bar would
give jurisdiction to this court over the
| offences charged.
THE POWER OF COURTS TO coNsTRuE STATUTES.
But is this language to be so interpreted
| Is it not rather to be limited by construc.
tionf If the latter, then the language is to
be construed according to rules Of statutory
Interpretation, which are as much a part oi
the statutory law as the statutes themselves.
Although, as will appear in the sequel, it is
unnecessary for me to do so with reference
to the eight indictments under immediate
consideration, shall first treat this clause OF
the fourteenth amendment as if it were not
qualified by any other clause in that amend.
ment, or BY the fifteenth amendment.
IL is settled principle of construction
that all instruments are to be Interpreted ac-
corilIng to their real intention and object;
and when statutes employ general terms,
those terms are to be limited in giving effect
to the statutes, according to the real mean.
ing of their authors, rather than according
to their literal meaning, so as to correct the
evil and advance the remedy contemplated
by them. The illustration of this principle,
which Is most familiar to the legal profes-
sion, is that given by Blackstone, book, p.
59.! A law Of Edward III. forbade all eccle.
siastical persons 10 purchase provisions at
| Rome. If the term provisions had been given
its widest meaning it would have forbidden
any, of the English clergy who might happen
Ito bs'af Rome fromi buying food; but the
statute was construed with reference to its
intention-which was to prohibit the pur-
chasing Of nominations by the Pope to &C.
| clesiastical benefces in England, which at
| that day were called prouistoas
It is general principle that the language
of statutes is, if possible, not to be SO inter-
preted as to produce absurdity, or oppres-
sion, or evils greater than those designed
| to be remedied by them. Indeed, the very
| function and proyinceef court is to con-
strue and apply the, law according to its true
meaning cnly, and for securing its real OBJ
| jects alone. 1.- -. .-a2
1t is, therefore, perfectly competent for
the national courts to discriminate between
| "the privileges and immunities Of citizens OF
the United States" alluded to the four.
teenth amendment, and to limit the meaning
of the acts of Congress passed to protect
them (the 4th section of theI Grst enforce.
ment act among others), so as to make them
conform in practice to the spirit of the Con
stitution of the United States, which regards
the National Government as one of limited,
express powers, and the Governments OF
the States as of general powers, not eX-
pressly enumerated. The authority OF the
courts to enlarge the powers Of the National
! Government by construction has always en-
couptered more or less disfayOr. Their au-
thority to limit those powers by construc.
ton has never been regarded with jealousy
| u,,n pIcurs TUE NATIONAL TRIBUNALS AND
WHAT RIGHTS THE STATE TRIBUNALS ABE
| BOUND TO PROTECT. ..--.,..-.s .,........ =
| The only difficulty in thus discriminating
| lies in ascertaining the principle on which to
proceed and the line Of distinction TO be
drawn in regard to the privileges or cltl'
zens of the United States intended to be
projected. flatter myself, however, that
| This difficulty can easily be surmounted in
considering the questions raised upon the
indictments before Us.
The Supreme Court of the United States,
| in its decision in the Slaughter-house cases
llG Wallace, 36), has. taken part of the re-
sponsbility of this task of of our hands.
Those were cases in which the subject OF
complaint was an act Of the Legislature OF
| Louisiana. That act created joint stock
company; empowered il to hold certain real
estate near the city OF New Orleans; required
that all animals which should be slaughtered
within large territery surrounding that
| city should be slaughtered upon'the premises
of this company; and gave it,in these and
other respects, exclusive rights in abridg-
! mept of the like rights of other citizens, and
especially of persons following the trade OF
butcbering in the area described.
The United States Supreme Court held
that the national courts had no jurisdiction
| to protect citizens of Louisiana, though they
were citizens of the United States, in such pri-
yileSes as were abridged by the act of incor-
poration complained of, passed by the Legis-
| iature and approved by the Supreme Court OF
the State. In its decision in these cases, pro-
nounced by Justice Miller, the Supreme
Court say Q6 Wallace, PIP. II, 7S: "Was
| it the purpose Of the fourteenth amendment,
| by the simple declaration that no State
should make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citi-
liens of the United States, to transfer the
security and protection of all the civil rights
| which we have mentioned from the States
to the Federal Governments And where
lit is declared that Congress shall have power
| to enforce that article was it intended to
bring within the power of Congress the en-
tire domain of civil rights heretofore be-
longing exclusively to the States? .:
| "AlI thisan more must follow, If the pro.
nositiop of the plaintiffs In error be sound.
For, not only are these rights subject to the
control of Congress whenever in its discre.
tion apy OF them aresupposed to be abridged
by State legislation, but that body may also
mass laws in advance, limiting and restrict.
inrI the exercise of legislative powers by the
States, in their most ordinary and usual
functions, as 10 its judgment it may think
proper, on all such subjects. - ,
"And stilfurther. such a construction, loi
lowed by the reversal of the judgment ol
the Supreme Court of Louisiana in these
eases. would constitute this court per.
petual censor upon all legislation of tht
States on the civil rights of their own citi
zens. with authority to nnllify such as 1t dio
not approye as consistent with those rights
az they existed at; the time OF the adoption
of this amendment. The argument, we ad
nit. is not always the most conclusive Whict
lis drawn from the consequences ursec
against the adoption of a particular con
siruction of an instrument. But when
as in the case before us, these conse
Ioneuces are 80 serious, SO far-reach'ne
and peryadius, SO great 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 ol
nowers heretofore universally conceded tc
them. OF the most ordinary and Fundamental
character; when, in fact, it radically chaIpges
the whole theory of the relations OF the STATE
and Federal Governments to the people the
argument has force that is irresistible, in
the absence of language which expresses
such purpose too clearly to admit of doubt
We are convinced that no such results were