Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1874-06-06
CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

CIVIL RIGHTS blLLs
With few exceptions the entire press
of the United States oppose the passage
If the civil rights bill. The New York
Herald says forcibly in speaking OF the
bill: "In legislation of this sort the
Senate simply Eliminates a bill against
a comet. 1t has no more authority over
the subject which it pretends to regulate
than the Shah Of Persia or the Emperor
of China, or any other magnificent po'
tenate, upon whose intellect his lunar
relationships have had bad effect
Congressman, in so far as they are SIN
cere in regard to this bill, are no doubt
misled by that portentiously comprehen'
siye clause of the fourteenth amend
ment, which declares that Congress
shall have power to enforce by appro-
pirate legislation the provisions OF this
article But one clause in the Constitu-
ton cannot have the power tonullity the
uurpose, scope and effect of the whole in
strument taken together. Perhaps the
States wanted to add to the Constitution;
we cannot believe they intended to ex-
uunge it. 1t was never supposed that a
clause of. two lines at the tail OF an
amendment would abrogate the whole
grand compact and take its place. In
the same amendment it is said: No
State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or i'm
munities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any
person Of life, liberty or property with
out due process of law, nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws. These are the
wise and safe indications of the only APP
propriate legislation that was possible.
Congress may define within certain
limits a course for the sovereign States,
but it cannot GUST them and pretend to
perform their minuter functions"
The Chicago Tribune, if briefer, is no
less explicit. 1t remarks: THE fault OF
the bill is that it attempts to do too much,
and to regulate by decree OF Govern
ment, the purely social relations of citi-
zens. But, so far as it disregards ebvi-
GUS principles of human nature, the bill
will. of necessity, become imperative,
and for this reason, serious objections
can be urged against its extreme provis-
IONS"
The Cincinnati Commercial points out
the almost absolute impossibility OF en-
forcing the law. Another most impor-
tsnt argument" it says, against passing
such civil rights bill as that proposed
lat least in its present shape) is that the
sole possibility of its enforcement rests
upon the courts of the United States.
These courts are so few in number and
so widely separated as to render any
practical attainment of justice under
this law, orr its equal enforcement through
out any State, an utter impossibility.
The United States Marshals would
find their hands SO full of business that
they would be compelled to call upon
the Treasury at Washington for an APP
preparation of about million dollars,
and power to appoint thousands of dep
uties to enforce the law. The United
States Courts themselves would have to
be multiplied hundred.fold or the
cases arising under the new penal stat
ute would never come to trial. Yet it il
manifest that the county and State
courts cannot and will not enforce a Law
of Congress, for it is not their function
to do so. 1t is forbidden by the very
foundation principles of our judicia
and political system. And this suggest
the propriety of further legislation as t
civil rights--at least in the direction c
the means of education-to those Stat
and local authorities that alone hav
mower in the premises