The daily gazette., 1875-04-03
The TyrannicaI Enforcement Act,

In referring to the proceedings now
being had in Washington, in which the
constitutionality of the Enforcement
Act is being tried, the New York Herald,
OF yesterday, editorially says:
The. language Of the amendment is
"No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens OF the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any
person OF life, liberty or property with
out due process of law; nor deny TO any
person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection OF the laws" This is so very
clearly O prohibition on the States, it
refers so exclusively to State action, it is
so obviously limited to restraining State
legislation adverse to the colored race,
that until State government violates
1t by the passage or enforcement of une-
quail laws there is nothing on which the
amendment can act. But Congress has
assumed to give the amendment much
wider scope. Instead of an act for null
flying. unequal State laws, if any State
should pass such laws, it has taken the
whole subject into its own jurisdiction,
and has legislated for negro equality
precisely as if no State governments
existed. But the amendment is aimed
solely against q particular prohibited
class OF State laws, comforting upon
Congress no authority to legislate on
the subject except in contravention
OF such forbidden State action. The
amendment does not take certain sub
jects of legislation out of the hands of
the States and give Congress power to
leglslate on them, but leaves subjects
within State jurisdiction with the sim
gle exception that whatever laws State
EAN. kl,.n. . r ~
general shall give equal protection to
citizens of the colored race. The amend.
lnent merely clothes Congress with q
negative on unequal State laws, leaving
the States US free in other respects at
they ever were. But i'll the Enforcement
act Congress overstepped and went alto
gether beyond this limit and undertook
TO legislate on the subject as freely as il
no State governments existed. 1t il
chiefly on this ground that many dis
tinguished lawyers think the Enforce
ment act unconstitutional, and they III,
very confident that. after q fair hearing
the Supreme Court will feel constraine,
to declare it void
lu the argument of the case Mr.. Mar
instanccd the fact that all the amen
nents to the constitution from the frs
to the eleventh had been intended t
orohlbit the general government frol
the exercise Of certain power
The Thirteenth, Fol r.eel tn an
fifteenth amendmentsonly restri,
ted the States from exercising eel
tain powers. The rights of the STATE
remained as before, with the exception {
therestrictions contained in these amend
ments. The amendments were leyela
not against individuals, but against III
States Congress under them had I
power to enforce or attempt to enfor,
punitive measures against individual
State. He said to the court that I'll
continuance OF the State government ar
the liberties OF the people were at stal
in their decision
Justice Miller asked Mr.. Field if h
hls argument was correct, if Cengre
had no right to pass any affirmative le
1slatlon, what remedy would have accru,
TO the kentucky negroes whose cas-
We're recently before the the court.
Mr.. Field said he did not know II
case.
Mr.. Justice Bradley explained that fl
negroes had peen deprived of the rigl
to vote through the neglect or refusal
the state officers to take from them Il
poll-tax which they had rendered M
me negroes had sought their remedy N
der the enforcement act.
Mr.. Justice Miller said the State h,
passed no law denying the right of the
men, and therefore under the view,
Mr.. Field they would be without al
redress.
Mr.. Field said they had the same reu
edy as white men-they could enter the
suites in the State courts for damage
He said also that if eight hundred thou