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

| to votes 1t makes no such provision; but il
| says that no man shall be denied the right
| of suffrage because of his color. In other
words, the Ststss may ,still prescribe .
| property qualification on the right Of suf.
frsge; the States may say that no man shall
have tho right to vote unless he has tive
hundred dollars worth of property, or that
no man shall have the right to vote unless
| do in Massachusetts, that no man shall
have the right to vote unless he can read
| and write. The States may still say that;
but these conditions must be made applica-
bic to men of all cOlOrs. There is the point
What tho fifteenth amendment says is
! that the conditions or restrictions upon suf-
frage. whatever that may be, must be
| equally applicable to all races. The State
OF North Carolina has right now to pro.
vide in her constitution that no man shaIl
have the right to vote unless he has $1,000
| worth OF property, but it can not conhne
! that to the colOred race or the white race;
| it must be equally applicable to all. In
| other words, whatever may be the cOndi-
tions of suffrage, either liberal or illiberal,
| it must not be made to depend upon color,
and that ia the whole OF the fifteenth amend
ment.
| Mr.. Merrimon-The point make. and
! MIL LI.f A4OAO1 dUiC lIlCuu uOCo NV SCt UP
| to 1t seems to me, is this: While there is
| this constitutional restriction as to the
| matter OF voting, there is no restriction in
| the constitution touching any other matter
| whatsoever. For example, there is no re-
! striction that prohibits the States from
passing law providing that colored people
| shall be educated in one school and white
people in another; that women shall go to
| a theater and that men shall not, or that
oh nd <haA oh, Mt ~
| State shall in its wisdom see proper to do
| that. There is no restriction on that power
| by any provision in the constitution OF the
| United States. That is the point make;
and if the Senator SAYS there is, shall be
| obliged to him if he will point out the clanse
of the constitution that does it.
Mr.. Morton-The constitution must of
necessity employ general terms. All con-
situations must. They can not specify par
ticular cases. The substance and the body
of the fourteenth amendment Is that it
establishes the equality of the races before
the law, and in the language of the Supreme
Court prevents any State from making any
Odious discrimination against any class of
people. 1t was not necessary that the con.
stitution should mention the theatre, or
should mention the railroad car, or should
mention the common school, It lays down
the broad and general proposition that men
of all races must be placed upon the same
level of equality in the enjoyment OF civil
rights. The States have all the powers left
them that they had before; they may make
all the conditions of suffrage, make all the
conditions in regard to travel, make all the
conditi ne in regard to the courts that they
ever could, with one single limitation, that
these conditions shall not depend upon the
question of race or color, and that is this
whole of it,
Mr.. Saulsbury-Wil my friend allow me
to ask him question!
Mr.. MortOn-Yes, sir.
Mr.. Ssulsbury-lf that is the true purport
and meaning of the fourteenth amendment
to the constitution as to the rights of the
colored people in the theatre, in the inn, in
public cOnveyances, and in common schools
and everywhere else, / ask the honorable
Senator wherefore the necessity for the
passage of the bill now under consideration!
If the right is secured by the constitution,
any law that enforces that right can be
tested in the courts and pronounced uncon-
stitutiOnal: and is not, therefore, the bill
before the Senate unnecessary!
Mr.. MortOn-I will answer my friend.
Rights are OF no avail unless they are en-
forced. 1t is of no advantage to me theO-
retically to have right which l can not
enforce. which can not secure the enjoy
ment of, my neighbor TO the contrary not
withstanding. Now, State may pass
law forbidding a colored man to go into the
cars-I am surprising this case in answer to
my friends question. That law, if carried
into the Supreme Court of the United States,
would be held to be unconstitutional in the
absence of this act But that is not thing
perhaps which the party injured could do.
That is very imperfect form of remedy,
simply to give the right of appeal from the
State courts to the courts of the United
States. That was not what was meant by
this amendment. The trainers of the
amendment-and l know something about
it-understood that law passed by
void, and the Supreme Court OF the
United States would so decide; but they
did not intend the victim to that round
about and costly remedy. They intended
to make it penal otfense for any man
to violate the rights of another, so that
if he did it he should do so at his peril.
The State law could not cover him and pro-
tect him. The point made by my friend
from Delaware is that if the rights of
citizen under the fourteenth amendmen.
are violated he can take an appeal, and the
State law authorizing Naturalization will be
declared to be unconstitutional. True: but
the perpetrator goes unpunished. He in
ours no penalty. He may commit gross
fraud, violence and wrong at the time, but
he does it with perfect impunity. The
crime presents no terrOrs, no retribution to
him. l ask what kind of protection that
gives? Oh, no! Rights are protected by
penal enactments, by Furnishing the yio-
lator of them. A State makes law. Under
cover of that law one man violates the
rights of another. To simply have the law
declared void is no vindication of the right
That is no punishment to the wrong-doer,
and all we say is that no law made by
State in violation Of this amendment shall
protect the criminal from punishment. And
that is the only efficient and successful ell
joyment OF these amendments that the peo-
pie can have. That was precisely what
was intended at the time the fourteenth
amendment was adopted, and the discus
sion will show it. And SO in regard to the
fifteenth amendment, in which l took a
part; and so in regard to the thir-
teenth amendment. 1t was intended at
the time-and the debates will show ito
make violation of these amendments a
personal and criminal offense, and to punish
the viOlator, because that is the only sue
cessfnl vindicatiOn of right. the only sue
cessful enforcement of the amendments that
can be had. I thiEk have answered NV
friend from Delaware.
l said that IN answer to the question of
my friend from North Carolina weuld read
from the decision of the Supreme Court,
and / do this not to inform him, because he
is familiar with the decision, but to show
the purpose OF these amendments by the
current history OF their adoption. l ask the
Secretary to read, commencing at the top
of page seventy of sixteen Wallace and
reading to the marked passage on page
seventy-one. Before the Secretary reads it