Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1874-01-29

as mas Deen repeatedly HeIu, I'd
no application to a citizen of tn
State whose laws are complained
of. If the plaintiff was a citizel
of the State of lllinlos, that pro
vision of the Constitution CAV,
her no protection against its court
OF its legislation.
Thus, after deliberation and re
view, the Supreme Court adhere
to the construction given in th'
Slaughter. house case.
: | contend, then, Mr.. Speaker
that is an end to the matter. |
the passage of this bill would b
unconstitutional, then where is the
man who is bold enough to strike
down the Constitution for The
qualification of any prejudice orc
any sympathy? If this bill is re
ally an assumption of new powers
by Congress, then its advocate:
are driven from the fourteenth a.
mendment. Where, then, vii
they make their stand? 1t mus
b. in article 4, section 2. OF the
Constitution of the United States
which is as follows: @ -.
The citizens of each State shall
be entitled toall privileges and i'm
munitles OF citizens i'll the several
States. #Et.
l will endeavor to show that
! that will not avail them. Justice
Story z Const., sec. lSO6,l in
commenting on that subject, said
that clause was only intended tc
confer on the citizens of each State
general citizenship; that it confers
no privileges or immunitles above
or beyond the privileges and i'm
munities enjoyed by the citizens
of the State which they make the
home Of their adoption. Ia short,
the adopted citizen was to be made
equal to the home-born citizen. 1t
neither created nor defined the
privileges and immunities Of the
citizens; but left them to look to
their respective State governments
as the source from which they flow.
If this be 50, and | maintain that
it Is. it. it.eftctualIy excludes the leg
islative jurisdiction of Congress
over the sui ject.
The authorities on the subject
can be piled mountain-ni9h, and l
will here call attention to somo OF
them. In the first place to the
opinion of Attorney-General Bates;
second, to Webster's opinion in
the case of Bank as. Primrose;
third, Corner as. Elliot, Is How
ard; fourth, Garfield Us. Coyell, 4
Washington's Circuit Court Re-
ports, $50; fifth, the report of the
Judiciary Committee OF the House
of Representatives January 80,
1871; sixth, report of the Judici'
ary Committee of the Senate JAN
uary 25, 1872; seventh, the
Slaughter house case. l6 Wallace;
eighth, Bradley as. Illinois, reaf-
frming the opinion in the Slaugh-
ter-hoIse cases; ninth the people
who have everywhere exercised
the power in all the States in the
adoption OF their constitutions;
tenth, the legislatures have eXer'
cised these powers, granting char
ters 10 counties, towns, schools.
railroads, and denying the right to
vote to women. minors, ministers,
felons, non residents, and exer-
cising power over the life, liberty,
and property of their citizens
The States were governments In
fact, SO recognized by the Consti-
tuition of the United States, the
true guardians of the immunities
and privileges of their own citizens.
This great truth runs back ofthe
Constitution of the United States
and is the tap-root of American
liberty, striking deep into the
heart of Our State and municipal
governments, which lie nearest to
the people, and which can best
understand and provide for their
wants.
When this body assumes pro-
teclOratc over them, it assumes a
power and prerogative which new
er can administer equal justice.
Not only the Southern, but the
Northern States exercised the
right of making determinations
amongst their own citizens, on the
grounds of public policy.
Massachusetts prohibited inter.
marriage between the races
Connecticut denied the elective
franchise to men Of the colofed
race, as did Pennsylvania and New
Jersey, also the right to testify in
cases where white man was a
party. New York had a property
qualification against colored men.
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michi-
gan, Iowa, denied the ballot and
intermarriage between the IA
Cos and tho rioht of cOlrcl