New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1874-01-15

few that moves the legislature, but the ulti
mate and real benefit Of all, even of -thos
who are denied the right to pursue thos
specified occupations. Does the gentleman
from Kentucky say that my good is promoted
when l am excluded from the public inn
Is the health or safety of the community pro
noted? Doubtless his prejudice is gratfed
Doubtless his Democratic instincts ART
say that such exclusion il a lawful exercise
of the police power of the State, or that it i:
not denial to mo of the equal protection O
the laws: They will not so say.
| But each of these gentlemen quote at some
| length from the decision Of the court to show
that the court recognizes difference be-
tween citizenship of the United States and
citizenship of the States. That is true, anG
no man here who supports this bill questions
or overlooks the difference. There are
privileges and immunities which belong tc
me rs citizen of the United States, and
there are other privileges and immunities
| which belong to me as a citizen of my State.
The former are under the protection of the
Constitution and laws of the United States
| and the latter are under the protection OF
the constitution and laws of my State. But
what of that? Are the rights which now
claim-the right to enjoy the common public
convenences of travel on public highways
of rest and refreshment at public inns, OF
education in public schools, of burial in
public cemeteries-rights which hold as a
citizen of the United States or Of my State
Or, TO state the question more exactly, is not
the denial of such privileges to me denial
to me OF the equal protection Of the laws
For it is under this clause of the fourteenth
amendment that we place the present bill,
no State shall "deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws No matter, therefore, whether his
rights are held under the United States or
under his particular State, he is equally pro-
tected by this amendment. He is always
and everywhere entitled to the equal pro-
lection OF the. laws. All discrimination is
forbidden; and while the rights of citizens
OF State as such are not defined or con-
ierred by the Constitution Of the United
States, yet all discrimination, all denial of
equality before the law, all denial Of the
equal protection of the laws, whether State
or national laws, is forbidden
The distinction between the two kinds OF
citizenship is clear, and the Supreme Court
have clearly pointed out this distinction, but
they have nowhere written a word or line
which denies to Congress the power to pre-
vent denial of equality Of rights, whether
those rights exist by virtue of citizenship of
the United States or of State. Let hon
orable members mark well this distinction.
There are rights which are conferred on US
by the States of which we are individually
the citizens. The fourteenth amendment
does not forbid a State to deny to all its citi-
zens any of those rights which the State
itself has conferred, with certain exceptions,
which are pointed out in the decision which
we are examining. What it does forbid is
inequality, is discrimination, or, to use the
words OF the amendment itself, is the denial
Ito any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection Of the laws" If State
denies to me rights which are common to all
her other citizens, she violates this amend
ment, unless she can show, as was shown
in the Slaughter-house cases, that she does
it in the legitimate exercise of her police
power. If she abridges the rights. of all her
'iti7ers equally, unless those rights are
specially guarded by the Constitution
this amendment. This is not to put the
rights which hold by virtue Of my citizen
ship OF South Carolina under the protection
OF the national Government; it is not to blot
cut or overlook in the slightest particular
the distinction between rights held under the
United States and rights held under the
States; but 1t seeks to secure equality, to
prevent discrimination, to confer as conf
plete and ample protection on the humblest
as on the highest.
The gentleman from Kentucky, In the
course OF the speech to which am now re-
plying, made a reference to the State OF
Massachusetts which betrays again the con-
| fusion which exists in his mind on this pre-.
else point. He tells US that Massachusetts,
excludes from the ballot-box all who cannot
read and write, and points to that fact as
the Exercise Of right which this bill would
abrid.e or impair. The honorable gentle.
man from Massachusetts Mr.. DAwEs1 an.
answered him truly and well, but / submit
that he did not make the best reply. WHY
did he not ask the gentleman from Ken.
lucky if Massachusetts had ever discrmin.
ated against any of her citizens on account
OF color, or race, or previous condition o!
servitude? When did Massachusetts, sully
her proud record by placing on her statute.
book any law which admitted to the ballot
the white man and shut out the black man :
She has never done it; she will not do it,
she cannot do it so long as we have SUI
prene Court which reads the Constitution O
our country with the eyes Of Justice; mol
can Massachusetts or Kentucky deny to any
man, on account Of his race, color, or pre-
vious condition of servitude, that perfect
equality of protection under the laws so Ions
as Congress shall exercise the power to en-.
force, by appropriate legislation, the great
and unquestionable securities embodied r
the fourteenth amendment to the Const
tuition.
But, sir, few words more as to the suf
frage regulation of Massachusetts,.
1t is TRUE that Massachusetts in 1857, find
ing that her illiterate population was being
constantly augmented by the continual in
fux of ignorant cmigrants, placed in he
constitution the least possible limitation con
sistent with manhood suffrage to stay Thu
tide Of foreign ignorance. Its benefit ha
been fully demonstrated in the intellectual
character of the voters of that honored Com
mOnwealth, reflected so conspicuously in the
able Representatives she has to-day upor
this floor. But neither is the inference 0
the gentleman from Kentucky legitimate
nor do the statistics of the census of 1870
drawn from his own State, sustain hi
a tounding assumption. According to tn
statistics we find the whole white population
OF that State is ,O9s ,692; the whole coloret
population 222, 2lO. Of the whole whit
population who cannot write we find POI OFT
of the whole colored population who canno
write, 126, 048; giving us, as will be seen
&C., 1872 colored persons who can write t,
S97, 6l5 white persons who can write. Now
the ratio of the colored population to TIN
white is as l to 5, and the ratio of the litter
ate colored population to- the whole colore'
population is as to 2; the ratio of the il
lIterate white population is the white popula
ton as / is to S. Reducing this, we have
only a preponderance of three.tenths il
favor of the whites as to literacy, notwith
standing the advantages which they hav,
always enjoyed and do now enjoy of free
school privileges, and this, too, taking solel.
| I'll or l,o:- II