Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-01-21
CIVIL RIGHTS.
SPEECH OF
HON. JNO. NJ. BRIGHT,


the Civil Rights bill, Nj. Bright said:
| Mr.. Speaker: propose to speak 10 the
reason, not to the prejudice of this body.
l propose candidly to offer some reasons
why l cannot vote for this bill.
| Without further p-eliminaries, / will
state that l believe It is unconstitutional,
impolitic, AID unnecessary; fraught only
with mischief to the parties whose inter-
| eSts il is intended to subserve. Ii the fact
be, Mr.. Speaker, that this bill is uncOnsti-
tutiOnal, aud If that facs can be demOnstra-
| ted here, that ought to be the end of the
| question. And presume Representatives
| upon both sides Of the House, concurring
| in the conviction or opinion that it is I'M
| constitutional, will cOncede that the bill
ought not to pass. They will, l have no
| doubt. manifest patriotism that win show
| that they love the Constitution and their
| country more than they do any
| colo, race, or previous condition Of sery
itude. Permit me, then, Mr.. Speaker, to
invite the attention of this honorable body
to few candid remarks which propose 10
submit to their consideration.
The frieIidS'of the bill base their argUls
ment for its support upon the fourteenth
amendment, and upon the second section
of the fourth article of the Constitution of
the United States. The fourteenth amend
ment i'll its first paragraph declares a dual
citizenship Of the people Of the United
States: first, 4 citizenship of the United
States; second by a citizenship of the States.
In the subsequent paragraphs it provides Ger.
tain prohibitions on the States; and desire
gentlemen to permit me 10 give emphasis
to the language of the Constitution itself
prohibitions upon the States, not upon
the individuals composing the States.
These prohibitions are intended TO protect
| the citizens of the United States against
oppressive legislation on the part OF the
States. The plain import of the words
can convey no other meaning. The Ian
guage fOrbidS the idea that it was intended
TO confer on Congress grand police power
| over the social and domestic relations of
the people of the States.
Now, Mr.. Speaker, the first proposition
| to which | invite the attention OF the
| House, and hope that the distinguished
| chairman of the committee who has charge
of the bill will feel himself called upon To
answer the argument, is this: that the four
| teenth amendment cOnfcrs no new grant Of
| power upon the Congress Of the United
States. | say, sir, that that question has
been settled both By legislative and Judicial
| precedeHiS- | invite the attention of the
| distinguished chairman Of the committee
| to this argument, and wish no evasion Of
| it. In the first place We have the lcgisla-
| tive act. Of this body. Mrs. Woodruff
as a m9mOrilliSt asked Of this honorable
body that it would grant the right of sniff
rage to her sex. Thai memorial was refer
red to The Judiciary Committee, Of which
| the distinguished Representative from Mas
| Sachusetts CHR. Butler) was 4 member at
the time. The committee reported this as
the construction they placed upon the
amendment:
''The clause OF. the fourteenth amendment,
| ono State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities OF cit
| liens OF the United States" does not. in the
opinion OF the committee, refer 10 privileges and
immunitcs Of citizens Of the United States other
/ than those privileges and iIHmunItieS embraced
in the original text of the Constitution, article
| two, section four. The fourteenth amendment,
il i believed, did Tot add to the privileges or i'm
/ munities before mentioned, bat a. deemed ne
ceSSaTy for their enforcement express liIni-
tatOn upon the powers OF the States IL had been
judieialiy determined that the first eight articles
| of amendment OF the Constitution were not linn
/ itIti0ns on the power OF the States, and il was
/ apprehended that the same might be held OF the
Gle"
Further on they say:
''Thc words citizens OF the United States,
/ and 'citiZcES Of the StateS, as employed in the
/ fourteenth am Utmelt, did n0J change or mOdi-
IS the relations a. citizens OF the state and ma
/ ton a they existed under the original COnstItu-
/ ton
What was tHs legislative action Of gen
tlemen upon the other side Of the House
on tla- sahiec.2 Thcv voted for the re-
ception Of That report Of the committee and
against the report Of the minority, headed,
as believe ic vls. by the distinguished
gentlemen .r0-a Massachusetts.
Iii. B-.lu., Of Massachusetts,. / made
| a minority report.
Mr.. Bright. I know yOI aid; l have it
| before NE. y similar memorial was pre-
sentel to the Senate Iy Miss Susan Il. An
| thOuy. and was referred % the Judiciary
| COMMITTEE of TINT body. That committee
1 rep,-.,,t unanimously .g favor Of adopting
| the same opinion Is tlat O. the majority OF
| the HcIse committee, and they followed
the same line Of argument.
In the Slaugltar-ho,ysec cases The Supreme
Court Of the United States says this:
GIN the case OF Paul IS. Virginia the court, in
eNpOuuCllg this clause OF the Constitution, SAYS
/ that the privileges and immuuities secured TO
| citizens Of each State ia the several States by
| the provision In question are those privileges
/ and immunitias which are common TO the citi-
The latter States under
| and laws by virtue Of their heing citizens.
THE constitutional provision there alluded TO
did not create those rights which il called priv
iieges and imuInities OF citizens of the States.
| Ii JErCw around them in that clause no security
for the citizen o. the State IN which they were
claimed or exercised, nor did il profess Ia con-
troll the power % the State governments over the
rights OF It's Os.u citizens
s.Its sole purpose was to declare 10 tho several
States that whatever tliaSe rights, As YOU grant
OF establish them 10 YOUR own citizens, or as you
limit or qualify or impose restrictions on their
eNerci>, the same, neither more nor less, shall
be the N assure Of the rights of citizens OF other
States within your jurisdiction
But they say further, and to this ask
especial attention.
"Of the privileges and immunities OF the cfti-
zenS OF the United States. and Of the privileges
and immunitieS OF the citizen OF the State, and
what thew respectively are, We will presently
consider, but wish 70 state here that il Is only
the former which are placed by this clause under
the protection Of the Federal Constitution, and
that the latter, whatever they may be, are not
intended 10 have apv additional protection by
this paragraph Of the amendment.
''lf, then, there j. a difference between the
privileges and immunitics belonging tOa citizen
OF the United States n such and those belonging
To the citizen Of the state such, the latter
must rest for their security and protection where
they have heretofore lestcd for they are not en-
braccd by this paragraph Of the amendment"
Is.that satisfactory? Is that the law of
Jlit ldlll Is litdl the l4oliIl Ob4Loli ttOtihAt
to place upon the fourteenth amendment
of the Constitution Of the United States
If SO, the question is settled, and this body
cannot override that decision without over
ruling the Constitution of the United
States. | ask some gentlemen on the other
side to meet this question fairly, and say
whether it was intended by that amend
mcnt 10 confer any new powers upon the
Congress Of the United States? The Su-
preme Court has settled that question;
and IL you We're here, gentlemen, empan-
neled rs jury, you would be compelled by
your Oaths to decide that il conferred no
new powers upon Congress.
But I add another authority. The Su-
preme Court, in the case Of BTldwen vs..
the State Of Illinois, following up the de
cision in the SlauglIter-hOUse case, math
this decision:
"The protection designed by that clause,
fourteenth amendmeut,) as has been repeat
edly held, has no application To citizen OF the
State whose laws are complained OF. III the
plaintiff was n citizen Of the State of Illinois,
that provision of the Constitution gave her no
protection against it, courts or its legislation
Thus, after deIiberatiOn and review, the
Supreme Court adhercs to the construction