Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-01-28

l0comotion, etc. Now freely admit that the
fourteenth amendment conferred citizen
ship upon the cOlored population of this
country, and that, in removing from one
State into another State, that they are en-
titled to all the privileges of citizens of that
State, but not to more privileges or immu-
mites than they possess The States have
general laws upon subjects of their own
Interest and domestic policy which thepas-
sage Of this bill would interfere with. The
State OF Pennsylvania recently-the KEY
stone OF the Federal arch-put in her newly
made constitution a clause forbiddinc per-
sons OF different races to marry. WHY?
Because sound public policy and the we'll
being of both races forbid the commincling
of the blood Of totally distinct races.
That was subject over which the soy
ereign people of Pennsylvania chose TO ex-
ercise their own free will. Ii was their
own business and no one else's. Pennsyl-
vania wisely declines to allow her man
hood to be emasculated by the degeneracy
which always marks a mOncreI race. Has
not Tennessee the same right, and did She
not exercise it? Upon what ground was it
done? Upon the ground Of color and of
race. But gentlemen argue that the four
teenth amendment permits no such thing
as Pennsylvania and Tennessee has done.
Does the fourteenth amendment undertake
to 60 into the States and declare what shall
be their internal, and domestic policy, or
does it simply mean to cOnfne its jurisdic-
ton and application to the enforcement of
rights Of citizens Of the United States &c
quired under the Federal Constitution? 1t
says:
All persons born or naturaliZed in the United
States, and subject TO the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens OF the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridee the priyi-
leges or immunities OF citizens OF the United
States.
Now, citizens of the United States have
no rights except those granted and confer
red by the Constitution Of the United
States. Where in the Constitution OF the
United States is it declared that the Anglo
Saxon and the African race NAV marry?
Well, if the States can regulate marriage,
may they not the schools and churches?
All statesmen Of all parties Indeed, the
public sentiment Of the cOlOred people
themselves-apprOye of the ordinance and
statutes, now common in many of the
States, which fOrbids intennarriage of the
races. God has stamped the fat of his con
demnation upon the issue of such mar
riageS too Enthusiastically to be denied-the
original prOgenitors of both races being SUI
periOr every way to the mixed offspring.
If, then, the marriage of the races brings
decay and death, and must be prohibited by
law-leaying out Of view for the present its
impOlicy-why have not the States the pow
er to keep the races apart in the schools and
elsewhere? These are laws and institutions
arising Oat Of local and municipal govern
ment; they belong under the American
system TO the States; and it will
be sad day when the
representatives Of the people, under de-
lusive idea Of equality before the law, shall
break down and override the authority of
the States and assume control Of ali or
domestic concerns, as though this country
was grand consolidated oligarchy. Every
State, according to the American idea until
recently, has claimed and exercised uniis-
puted control over lis own domestic con-
Germs. This tendency to Capitalization has
been inherited from TIE teachings and
practices which came into vogue during the
late war, and are now sought to be made a
permanent theory. The States have always
controlled, among other internal matters,
the regulationOf their schools and churches
when incorporated, their OWL places Of
amusement, their inns, public carriers, etc.
The State Of Tennessee taxes its own
citizens TO raise a common school fund.
1t IS purely State matter. The Federal
Government pays not a dollar into the
fund, and yet by this bill it undertakes, by
Prescribing severe pains and penalties, to
control the manner in which that fund shall
be distributed for the education of the
State. / DO not advocate the doctrine that
the cOlOred children should not have nu-
merically their prOpOrtiOnate share, al
though in the counties where the tax is
voted the property Of the white citizens
furnishes nine-tenths Of the school mon
eyS; but hold that it is the exclusive right
of the State to distribute the common
school revenues in its own way, without
Federal interpOSition. Are the States to
be forced, in the education of the youth, to
procrustean rule which requires children
Of all cOlOrs and both sexes TO be together!
May not equal advantages be enjoyed by all,
and yet keep the sexes and color apart?
WOuldthat not be ageneral law, and would it
work any deprivation or hardship TO any
one? The social restriction would apply
10 the white child IS well as to the black.
And admitting, under the most forced con-
structiOn of the fourteenth amendment,
that Congress has the right 20 interfere in
any way-which / deny-in what respect
would violence be done to the Constitution
by the State law requiring the sexes and
cOIOrS to be Kept separate, when the same
measure of Justice is meted ont to each?
But the distinction is a plain one. The
fourteenth amendment only protects the
citizen in his rights rs a citizen Of the
United States, and does not propose 20 in
terfere with the States in the management
Of their own domestic concerns among
their own citizens under equal and uniform
laws. The language of the Supreme Court
in the Slaughter-hOCse case, as it is styled,
is clear and conclusive.
The court says, in commenting on the
fourteenth amendment:
The next observation is more important, in
view Of the arguments Of counsel In the present
case. 10 is that the distinction between citizens
OF the United States and citizenship of State
i clearly recognized and established Not only
nav a man be a citizen OF the United States
without being q citizen OF State, bQt an i'm
pOTtGnt element is necessary tn convert the for
mcT into the latter. lie must reside within the
State 10 make him n citizen of il, but Il Is only
Necessary that he should be born or naturalized
Union.
Iii quite clear. then, that there is a citizen
ship Of the United States and q citizenship Of a
State, which are distinct from each other, and
which depend upon different characteristics or
circumstances in the individual.
We Observation-Disclosures AID its explicit rccOg-
milton in this amendment of great weight in this
argument, because the next paragraph OF this
same section, which is the one mainly relied on
by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only Of privi-
leges and immunitiCs Of citizens of the United
States, and does not speak OF those Of citizens
wholly on the assumption that the citizenship -
the same, and TIE privileges and immuniJcs
guaranteed bv the clause are the same.
The language il, ''NO State shall make or en-
force any law which shall ah-idge the privileges
or imnurities Of citizens CT the United States
1t is q little remarkable, IL this clause was IN
tended a. 2 protection 20 the citizens Of the
State against the legislative power of his own
should b. left ont when IL l. carefully uS~t, 4,
and used in cOntradiStuctlOu 10 ''citizens of the
United States" i'm the very sentence which pre-
ccdts il. IL is too clear for argument that the
change in phraScOlOgy was adopted understand
iEglv and with purIp>r.
OF the privileges and iT.ubuniticSO Of the Jnttet
States. and of the priyiI, ggs and imnuuities Of
the citizens OF the STATE, ami what they TeSpec-
lively are. We will presently CONSIDER blt we
wish 10 state here that DO b only ttc former vhich
are placed by this clause UuIrr tie protection Of
the Federal Constitution AMI that tEe latter,
whatever they may b. are NOS uifendec % nave
any additional protection br this paragraph OF
the amendment. 4, taau. there ~ difference
between the privileges AND iEimunifias b-iouE-
inc To a citizen OF tire u.-H states rs SuCh. anu
those belonging To tie citizen Df the State ~
such the latter must r-St tor their security and
protection where they have heretofore rested. for
they are not embraced 10y this paragraph Of the
sr~HuaHr sFrUaHaF ~.