Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-03-27

and punishment by the State courts
It is not the "conspirators, " but the
United States officials, wEo have
forced the State to deny the equal
protection Of the laws to these ne
groes, by not permit ting it to vindicate
their outraged rights in its own courts,
and mete out justice to the trans
! gressors it is the Federal authority
which has thus forced the State to
surcease It's efforts to secure these ne
groes 'the equal protection Of the
laws" in the identical manner that it
secures the rights of all citizens when
outraged.
Clearly the Ku-Klux conspiracy at
Trenton did not overawe the State, but
was merely violence by citizen against
citizen" which Judge Emmons de-
clares is not punishable by Federal
statute. The negroes taken from the
Jail were mere citizens, and the con-
sPirators we're citizens. But the
Judges logic seems to be that the jail
or was overawed; that the jailor was
an organ" of the State that, as such,
the indivisible political corporation of
the State in its plenary sovereign ca
pacity was present in his person, and
thus, the jaiIor being overawed, the
State was overawed. This proves al.
together too much, and if correct,
would open a new and hitherto IN
heard-of field for Federal iuris-
diction. As well argue that,
where single United States
Marshal is overpowered and a pris-
oner rescued, the whole United States
is thereby "o7erawed and forced to
deny the equal protection of the laws. /"
If Judge Emmons be correct, hereafter
all jai-breakers and lynchers, from
Maine 10 Montana, must be hunted up
and tried and punished By the Federal
authorities. Every offender against
any State officer, down to jailer, would
be amenable to Federal statutes for
''overawing" the plenary State SOW
ereignty present in his person. The
State would no longer be permitted to
protect its Owno officers or jails, the cen
tral government assuming exclusive
jurisdiction Of all offences against
them.
Whence does Judge Emmons derive
this new lease Of power? From what
clause of the Federal Constitution?
Certainly not from the Fourteenth
Amendment, as interpreted by himself
a few days ago. The first section Of
that amendment forblds any State to
deny any person within It's jurisdic-
ton the equal protection of the laws.
The word person" makes this pro.
vision apply to aliens as well as citizens,
to Chinese and Indians AS well as eau
casians and negroes. But this inhibi-
ton applies to the State only, and not
to individuals. We copy the portion
of Judge Emmons' charge on civil
rights last Monday, bearing upon this
point, as telegraphed and published
throughout the country in Tuesday
papers:
He also reviews, at great length, the
Fourteenth amendment, and says the
clauses forbidding States to deprive
any person Of life, liberty or property,
without due process Of law, or denying
to any person the equal protection OF
the law, have no application to this
subject. They are intended solely to
prevent the arbitrary transfer of prop
ertY from citizen to citizen without
legal adjudication Of process, and pre-
vent the establishment Of tribunals for
one class Of persons varying from those
which determine the rights Of all.
These iRhibiti0Hs, too, beyond all cOHtrO-
Usrsy, are aimed at the action Of the State
only, and hare no reference to md
UidUdlS.
If the inhibitions Of the Fourteenth
Amendment are aimed at the action of
the State only, and have no reference
to Individuals, how can the Gibson
county prisoners be punished under
this Amendment or any law enacted In
pursuance thereof? To ask the ques-
ton is to answer IT. And this fact that
the Fourteenth Amendment bears on
States only, and not on individuals,
raises a doubt concerning Judge En-
mons supposjitiOus case Of a Legisla-
ture overawed and forced by an armed
mob to enact an unconstitutional stat
ute. Whether the State be overawed
as embodied in the Legislature or as
personated in a court, sheriff or jailori
the Fourteenth Amendment deals with
the State only, and has no reference to
individuals or mobs Of individuals.
tits plain that Judge EmmOns can
not base his new doctrine on this
amendment, IS construed by himself
only a few days ago. The other post
/ bellum amendments have no reference
TO the subject, and it viii hardly b,
claimed that such Federal jurisdiction
as he upholds, was ever exercised o.
even claimed by the United States
courts previously. Hence, we ar,
thrown back upon article " section 4
Of the original Constitution as the only
provision bearing on the case. TIL,
! section Is a familiar one:
The United States shall guarantee t
every State In this Union a republican
| form of government, and shall protect
each of them against invasion; and, OF
application Of the Legislature, or o.
! the Executive when the Legislature
! 5000 l., oo-,v-.r,.1h or-,f,,o4 dome -,