The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1874-01-16

mental law OF our country IL changed.
Has the honorable gentleman from Ken
lucky considered well the claim he now adj
vances Ii 1t were not disrespcctful would
ask, has he ever read the decision which he
now tells us is an insuperable barrier to the
adoption OF this great measure of Justice?
In the consideration of this subject has not
the Judgment OF the gentleman from Georgia
been warped by the ghost of the dead doc
trine of State rights Has he been alto
gether freed from prejudice engendered byjlong
training in that school of politics that we'll
nigh destroyed this Government?
Mr. Speaker, venture to say here in the
presence of the gentleman from Kentucky
and the gentleman from Georgia, and in the
presence OF the whole country, that there il
not line nor word, not a thought nor dictum
even, in the decision of the supreme Court in
| the great slaughter-house cases which casts
shadow of doubt on the right OF Congress to
pass the pending bill, or TO adopt such other
legislation as it may judge proper and neces-
sary to secure perfect equality before the law
to every citizen Of the Republic. Sir pro-
| test against the dishonor now cast upon our
! Supreme Court by both the gentleman from
Kentucky and the gentleman from Georgia.
In other days, when the whole country was
| bowling beneath thu yoke of slavery, when
press, pulpit, platform. Congress and courts
felt the fatal power of the slave oligarchy, L
remember a decision of that court which no
American now reads without shame and humil-
ation. But those days are past. The Su-
preme Court of to-day is n tribunal as true to
! freedom al any department of this Govern
ment, and am honored with the opportunity
| of repelling a deep disgrace which the gentle
man from Kentucky, backed and sustained as
he is by the gentleman from Georgia, seeks to
put upon it.
If we are to be likened in legal view TO 'un-
wholesome trades" to Large and offensive
collections of animals. " to noxous slaughter
| houses" TO the offal and stencil which at
| tend certain manufactures, let 1t be
avowed. If that il still the doctrine of the
political party to which the gentlemen belong,
| let il he put upon record. If State laws which
deny us the common rights and privileges of
other citizens, upon no possible or conceivable
| ground save one of prejudice, or of taste,
az the gentleman from Texas termed it, and as
l suppose the gentleman will prefer to call it,
are to be placed under the protection OF de-
cision which afiirms the right OF State to
regulate the police of her great cities, then
! the decision is in conflict with the bill before
us. No man will dare maintain such doc
trine. 1t is as shocking to the legal mind AZ
it is offensive to the heart and conscience OF
all who love justice or respect manhood. am
astonished that the gentleman from Kentucky
or the gentleman from Georgia should have
been so grossly misled as to rise here and as
sert that the decision of the Supreme Court in
these cases a denial to Congress OF the
power to legislate against determinations on
of servitude, because that court has decided
that exclusive privileges conferred for the
common protection of the lives and health of
the whole community are not in violation OF
the recent amendments. The only ground
upon which the grant Of exclusive privileges
to portion of the community is ever defend
ed is that the substantial good of all is pro-
noted; that in truth.it is for the welfare OF
the whole community that certain persons
should alone pursue certain occupations. II
, il not the special benefit conferred OH the few
that moves the Legislature, but the ultimate
and real benefit of all, even of those who are
denied the right to pursue those specified oc-
equations. Does the gentleman from Ken
/ tucky say that my good is promoted when
am excluded from the public inn Is the
health or safety of the community promoted
Doubtless his prejudice IL gratlhed. Doubt
less his Democratic instincts are pleased but
will he or his able coadjutor say that such ex
clusion is a lawful exercise Of the police
, power of the State or that it is not denial tC
me of the equal protection of the laws! They
will not 80 say.
But each of these gentlemen quote at som,
length from the decision of the court, to show
, that the court recognizes difference between
4 citizenship of the United States and citizen
, ship of the States. That is true, and no maj
} here who supports this bill questions or over
J looks the difference. There are privileges anC
immunities which belong to me IA a citizen o
the United States and there are other priv
leges and immunties which belong to me as
citizen of my State. The former are unde
the protection of the Constitution aud laws o.
: the United States, and the latter are under thu
protection of the Constitution and laws of m,
State. But what of that Are the right
which / now claim-the right to enjoy tn
, common public conveniences of travel OF
! public highways, of rest and refreshment a
public inns, of education in public schools, o
, burial in public cemeteries-rights which
hOl1 oit nf he Tod n n
d State ! Or, TO state the question more exact
: ly. is not the denial of such privileges to me
: denial to me of the equal protection of tn
= laws? For it is under this clause of TIL
= Fourteenth amendment that we place the pres
a ent bill-no State shall deny TO any person
v within its jurisdiction the equal protection o
the laws" No matter, therefore, whether hi
: ! rights are held under the United States or III
! der his particular State, he is equally protecte
a by this amendment. He is always and every
h where entitled to the equal protection Of tn
Y laws. All discrimination is forbidden; all
Z while the rights of citizens of a State as sue
4 are not defined or conferred by the Constitu
: ton of the United States. yet all discrimins
ton all denial of equality before the law, a
f denial of the equal protection OF the law'
n whether State or national laws, IL forbidden.
:
The gentleman from Kentucky in the cours
t Of the speech to which / am now replying
V made reference to the State of Massachu
II sets which betrays again the confusion whic
- exists in his mind on this precise point. ii
;, tells us that Massachusetts, excludes froI
the ballot-box all who cannot read and write
}, and points to that fact as the exercise of
right which this bill would abridge or impair
II The honorable gentleman from Massachusett
e (Mr. Dawes) answered him truly and well
J. but / submit that he did not make the best r.
o ply. Why did he not ask the gentlemen froi
o Kentucky il Massachusetts, had ever discrin
Is mated against any of her citizens on accour
- of color, or race, or previous condition c
Il servtude {? When did Massachusetts, sui
, her proud record by placing on her statute
: book any law which admitted to the ballot tn
It white man and shut out the black man 81
has never done it she will not do it she cal
o not do it so long as we have Supreme Cou
Ii which reads the Constitution of our COUNT
IL; with the eyes of justice nor can Massacht
N sets or Kentucky deny to any man, on az
% count of his race, color, or previous condltio
% of servitude, that perfect equality of prote'
ton under the laws so long as Congress sha
% exercise the power to enforce, by appropriat
N legislation, the great and unquestionable 81
ID curites embodied in the Fourteenth Amen'
m ment to the Constitution.
~
N Mr.. Speaker, have neither the time M
" the inclination to notice the many illogical al
VI forced conclusions, the numerous transfers {
terms, or the vulgar insinuations which encun