Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1874-01-29
held Of the provision of the second
section, fourth article.
FurtEer on thew saw.

SSCtlOD, lOurtu drtlcle
Further on they say:
The words "cltizens of the y.
nited States," and ''citizens of the
States" as employed in the four
teenth amendment, did not change
or modify the relations of citizens
of the State and nation as they
existed under the original Cousti-
tuition.
What was the legislative action
of gentlemen upon the other side
of the House on that subject?
They voted for the reception OF
that report of the committee, and
against the report OF the minority,
headed, as | believe it was, by the
distinguished gentleman from Mas
sachusetts.
Mr.. Butler, of Massachusetts.
| made minority report.
Mr.. Bright. l know you did; I
have it before me. A similar me-
mortal was presented to the Senate
by Miss Susan B. Anthony, and
was referred to the Judiciary Com
mittee of that body. That COM
mittee reported unanimously in
favor of adopting the same opinion
as that of the majority of the
House committee, and they fol-
lowed the same line of argument.
In the Slaughter, house case the
Supreme Court Of the United
States says this:
In the case of Paul as. Virginia
the court, in expounding this clause
OF the Constitution, says that "tbe
privileges and immunities secured
to the citizens f each State in the
several States by the provision in
question are those privileges and
immunities which are common to
the citizens in the latter States un.
der their constitution and laws by
virtue of their being citizens.
The constitutional provision
IT,, re alluded to did not create
those rign:s which it called priv
ileges and imn1uGities OF citizens
of the States. 1t threw around
them in that clause no security 1uT
the citizens of the State in which
they were claimed or exercised,
nor did it profess to control the
power of the State governments
over the rights of its own citizens. F.
Its sole purpose was TO declare
to the several States that what.
ever those rights, as you grant or
establish them TO your own citi-
zeps, or as you limit or qualify or
impose restrictions on their eXer-
else, the same, neither more nor,
less, shall be the measure 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 immuni-
ties of the citizens of the United
States, and of the privileges and
immunities Of the citizen Of the
State, and OF what they respect
lively are we will presently con.
slider, but we wish to state here
that it is only the former which
are placed by this clause under
the protection of the Federal Con-
stitution, and that the latter,
whatever they may be, are not in
tended to have any additional pro-
lection by this paragraph of the
amendment.
If, then, there is a difference be-
tween the privileges and immuni-
ties belonging to "a citizen of the
United States as such and those
belonging to the citizen of the
State as such, the latter mrst rest
for their security and protection
where they have heretofore rested;
for they are not embraced by this
paragraph Of the amendment.
Is that satisfactory Is that
the law of the land? Is that the
proper construction to place upon
the fourteenth amendment of the
Constitution of the United StatesH
If so. the question is settled. and
this body cannot override that de-
cision without overriding the Con-
stitution of the United States. |
ask some gentleman on the other
side 70 meet this question fairly,
and say whether it was intended
by that amendment TO confer any
new powers upon the Congress OF
the United States? The Su-
preme Court has settled that ques-
ton; and if you were here, gentle
men, empanneled as a jury, you
would be compelled by your oaths
to dtcide that it conferred no new
powers upon Congress.
But / add another authority.
The Supreme Court, in the case of
Bradwell Us. the State of Illinois,
following up the decision in the
Slaughter house case, made this
decision:
The protection designed hv that