New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-07-26


character against any class Of persons,
being citizens Of the United States.
In this sense, Mr.. President, the Supreme
Court refers to this amendment in the de-
cisiOn read from the Senator from Ohio;
and beg leave to call the attention Of the
Senate (for think the whole argument is
in nuteheli to what the Supreme Court
have said in regard TO this very clause. l
read from the slaughterhouse case (l6 Wal
lace). The court quotes this clause:
Nor shall any State deny to any person
within its Jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws"
Then the court 20 on and say:
"In the light of the history Of these amend
ments, and the pervadiug purpose of them,
which we have already discussed, 1t is not
difficult to give a meaning to this clause.
The existence of laws in the States where
the newly emancipated negroes resided,
which Disseminated with gross injustice and
hardship against them as a class. was the
evil to be remedied by this clause. and by
it such laws are forbidden.
IF, however, the States did not conform
their laws to its requirements, then by the
fifth section of the article of amendment
Congress was authorized to enforce it by
suitabl legislation. We doubt very much
whether any action of q State not directed
by way Of discrimination against the ne
grOes as q class, or on account of their race,
will ever be held to come within the pur-
view of this provision. 1t Is 80 clearly
provision for that race and that emergency,
that strong case would be necessary tor
its application to any other. But as it is
State that is to be dealt with, and not alone
the validity of its laws, we may safely
leave that matter until Congress shall have
exercised it's power, or some case OF State
oppression, BY denial OF equal justice in it's
courts, shall have claimed a decision at our
hands,"
There is an express definition of it. 1t is
not simply confined to protection of the
person against assault and battery or vio-
lence, but protection against all unjust dis.
against the negroes az class.
that shall pertain to personal
safety or safety of property, or the
equal enjoyment of rights, or the equal
enjoyment of public Institutions, makes
no sort of difference. Every discrimi-
is denying to them the equal pro-
lection of tle laws. For example. if q
State should pass law forbiddiDg to
negroes the right to bring suits in court, to
sue for debts, to prosecute for 0ffenses
against them or their families, fOrbidding
them to act as witnesses, these things
would be denying to them the equal pro-
lection of the laws. If the colored man
has no right to bring suit in court for
the collection of debt, thing that does
not pertain. perhaps. to his personal safety
at all. yet it is denying to him the equal
benefit, tho equal protection of the laws.
Mr.. Merrimon-1 desire to ask the Senator
from Indiana question or two before he
d. parts from the branch Of the subject
v hich he IL now discussing. Do l under
stand the Senator to say that citizen of
The United States as citizen of the United
States, and by virtue of his rights under
the constitution of the United States, has
3 right to attend q public theatre, that he
has a right to be buried ir a graveyard,
that he has a right to attend particular
,lass of schools! Does he derive that right
rom his citizenship as citizen of the
United States. or from his citizenship as q
citizen Of the State?
Mr.. Morton-I can answer that question,
think, in the course of the general argu-
nent that shall make, without turning
aside from the particular point that have
n view. l will endeavor to answer the
Senator's question before get through.
Mr.. Merrimon-I will put another ques-
ion, with the Senator's permission. before
take my seat Suppose that State shall
zee proper, as matter of police regulation,
20 provide that females shall be educated
n one school and males shall be educated
u another schOOl-dO l understand the
Senator from Indiana to say
hat State would not have power to make
'uch q police regulation, and that the
ederal government, if State should un-
lertake to exercise such power, could upset
t.
Mr.. Morton-No, sir; do not mean to say
hat l will tell the Senator what do mean
10 say in regard to schools; but will first
conclude the point that l was on, that this
phrase, "nor shall any State deny to any
person within it's jurisdiction the equal pro-
ection of the laws" denies to any State the
power to make discrimination against any
lass of men as q class. 1t denies the power
o exclude negroes from courts of justice
because they are negroes; it denies the
power to exclude them from schools because
hey are negroes; because that would be a
ross discrimination, in the language of the
supreme Court. The question of separating
males and females into different schools
loes not come within the principle at all.
The great OBJECT Of the fourteenth amend
nent was to establish the equality of races,
quality before the law. The separation of
he sexes, putting male children into one
chool and females into another, does not
'iolate that principle, provided it extends
0 all races. This amendment was intended
o destroy caste, to put all races upon an
quality. There is the point.
Mr.. MerrimOn-SuppOse the Chinese were
erel
Mr.. Morton-The power of the States to
stablish different grades of schools and
ifferent courts and to give to each court
eparste and distinct Jurisdiction remains
lst as it was, with this difference, that the
over to discriminate between races is
hn tot nnf
o establish common schools; but if
he States do establish common schools
D be supported at public expense,
hey can not exclude the children Of any
ace from those schools. They must be
pen to the children of all races upon pre-
isely the same terms. They may say if
hey please-perhaps that is an extreme
none but male children shall at
end; but they must be the males of all |
aces. will not 60 that far, but the law
lay say that no child shall attend COM |
ION school, if you please, over sixteen
ears of age.
Mr.. Merrlmon-Why do you use the word |
racesN'
Mr.. Morton-I think it is very apparent |
nat that is what is meant, and the Su- !
RENE Court have expressly said 3d. 1t is |
IS adjudicata, so far as the court is con- |
erned. have already read to my friend |
hat the Supreme Court say upon that |
Oint.
Mr. Merrimon-The point make is this,
le constitution does not say anything |
bout "race" except in certain respects. 1t |
rovides expressly that there shall be no
iscriminati on account of race or color |
s to the matter Of voting; it does that |
1 terms; but there is no such expression |
)uching distinctions as to race In any |
ther respect whatsoever.
Mr.. MortOn-The constitution in effect |
oes say so. 1t says that no person shall be |
enied the equal protection of the laws;
nd if common schools are established and |
he children of cOlored men are excluded |
rom those schools, ask my friend-and |