New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1874-01-22


From New Jersey.
To the Editor orthe Ne,o National Era and Citizen:
The objections to the Civil Rights bill are
that it interferes with State rights, or State
sovereignty.
Each State, il is maintained, has the right to
manage its own affairs in its own way. If
the proposition be true, it is equally true be-
fore the rebellion, when the fact is clear that
the General Government passed laws annull-
ing State laws that existed in Ohio, Ken
lucky, Indiana, Illinois, Delaware, and
Maryland affecting the status and rights of
the colored inhabitants of the United States
such as ingress and egress between the
States, the right to their oath against white
persons, right to trial by jury; their right to
schools; their right to preach, and other
municipal and State regulations. These laws
were all annulled by Congressional legisla-
ton and enactment. This was done during
tho existence of the rebellion and subse-
quently. Then little or nothing was said of
State rights and State sovereignty, but when
peace and quiet are restored, and regulations
being established and provisions being made
by law to protect this hitherto prescribed
class in the full exercise and enjoyment of
their rights, then we hear the clamOr that it
is unconstitutional; it is an invasion of the
rights of the States. 1t is not
Kozta but a negro, now who is to be pro-
tected-that's the difference. The whole
power of the country can be brought into
requsition when an American citizens (and
he foreigner) rights have been invaded by
a foreign power, but native-born Ameri-
cans-five millions strong-can have their
rights ds6anuy set aside in their own cOun-
try, and in the States that give them birth,
and yet no right exists on the part of the
Government to interfere. If this be con-
stitutional it is devoid of that essential ele-
ment-justice. If this be constitutional it
is in opposition to the fundamental princi-
pies of a republican form of government,
which declares that all such governments
derive their just powers from the consent of
the governed" But these great and grand
old principles which underlie the whole
structure of the Government of the United
States, which give it character and power
throughout the civilized world, are only ap-
plicable to white citizens. But what says
the preamble to the Constitution (Which is
the exponent of the letter and spirit, the
object and intent of the Constitution Itself
it does not deal in generalities, but is specific
and clear. 1t says, 1--WE, the people of the
United States Care not colored people in
cluded p in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice"--they were be-
fore not fully united, injustice then existed
'provide for the common defense, insure
domestic tranquility, defend the common in
terest, secure peace and quiet, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings OF
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution"
Now, is this language meaningless not,
what does it mean? Does it not embody
the whole American people, and does it not
propose to protect all classes in the exercise
and enjoyment of their rights I? The Ian
guage, however rigidly construed, cannot by
any forced construction mean anything less
than the whole people. If then justice is to
be established and liberty secured 10y the
operation of this instrument, is it not the
duty of the General Government to protect
the rights of those who are governed by this
instrument? Is it not perfectly legitimate
and in keeping with the provisions Of that
instrument, as will further proceed to show.
In amendments, article Is, one clause in that
article says no person shall be deprived of
life or liberty without due process of law.
Are not colored persons restrained and
prohibited in the exercise of their duty when
refused admission into the hotels, steamboats,,
I public schools, and all other public rights
enjoyed by our white fellow-citizens 1t is
maxim in common law that there is no
wrong without remedy, and there is no
remedy in common law, for popular preJu-
dice and public sentiment are in opposition
to it-not the individual citizen, but the
whole United States must take the matter in
hand to effect a cure; hence the General
Government has not only the power, but the
constitutional right to interfere.
Again, in article four, second section, 1t
reads that "the citizens of each State shall
be entitled to all privileges and immunltles
of the citizens Of the several States" There
| is not a State in this Union but what this
section of the Constitution is not grossly
violated. If the General Government has
the power to confer rights she also has the
power to guard and protect them-one is
consequent upon the other. The proposition
then is clear, if am to be governed by law
in the use Of my rights, I am also to be pro-
tectcd in the enjoyment Of my rights. The
same power that governs must protect. This
Is selfevident proposition. Here it may
be said that the States to whom owe al
legiance does both, and it is the province Of
the States to control and regulate this mat
ter; but does the States do itF Nay, verify
but on the contrary are disposed to deny
abridge and destroy the rights OF this class
Of our citizens. Then, a. American citizens