, 1875-03-09

negative vote. LILO net is ohe c0uccrnlnE
whose constitutionality and czpetliency |
there ia wide difference Of opinion. It re-
cites its object in the following preamble,
taken from the Democratic platform Of 1872:
It Ia essential to lust government That recognize
the equality Of Ill before tho Law, and hold that
:. II Tie Wy IT government In ia dealings viii! peo-
pie to eto nut equal mud exact Justice to a of whit
nativity, race, COLOR 1crsuason, Religious or
political.
Tic principle Of tic law is essentially
Democratic. It is universally recognized ns
equally applicable to all white persons rs well
MS colored the only question is, Can it be legal
ly extent1cd to persons Of African and Asiatio
birth or race? The Inv il not one upon
which political parties will divide, MS upon u
national issue; except, perhaps, in few
localities or districts, there will bo no cleo
tons determined MS to tho repeal or ron.rc-
peal Of the act. It isp question which MI
parties will gladly submit to the courts for
their decision, aud III TINT decision all parties
will acsluiesco.
Tho Inv provides tint oil persons within
the Jurisdiction Of tho United States shall be
entitled of right to admission to all hotels,
inns, restaurants, stage-coaches, railrosd-cars,
steamboats,, theatres and other places Of
amusement, upon ternB of full equality with
all others; and that my person excluding any
such person because of his color, race, or
previous condition Of scrvitudc, shall bo fined
from $500 to $1,000, or imprisoned from
thirty lays to ono year for ench oacnse; OR
may bo sued by tho party 30 excluded in MI
1T 7nbk fr.4 $,{s rf n1f
actions arising under this Inv is conferred ex-
clusiycly upon the United States Courts. 1t
also provides TINT no citizen otler,yiBo quRli-
fed by law shall be disqualified for service as
Grand or Petit Juror in any State OH nc
count of his race or color.
When tho bill was before the sonatc, Mr..
CARPENTER matae very strong argument to
establish TINT the Inv was unconstitutional.
Ho pointed out TINT thora was a Clearly de-
fned distinction between tho rights md
duties OF citizen Of tho United States mud
Of tho same person as citizen Of Stnte.
Tilis distinction was recognized by the
courts. Congress-, under its power to regu.
lato commerce between the States, might
possibly have authority to say that person,
while on journeys from ono Stato to others.
should DO entitled to accommodation in tho
inns in the several States through which lo
may pass, and, upon tile assumption that II
cheerful mind il favorable to enterprise, 1t
might bo required that he should be n<lmit-
tod to theatres but theso would seem to bo
rather fantastic regulations Of CON-
merce." But the bill is not con-
fined to persons ongaged in commerce,
but applies to all persons. The authority for
the bill rests upon tho Fourteenth Auoud-
mcnt. Mr.. CARPENTER examined the proy;s-
iona Of that amendment, and declared his in
nbility to find in them any warrant for tho
enactment of such law a8 this. Tho only
clatso in that amendment having any remote
bearing on this bill is that which, declaring
that "all persons born or uaturalizol In tho
United States and subject to tho Jurisdiction
thereof are citizens Of tho United Statea, and
Of tho State wl,crein tAoy reside" onacts that
no State shall make or enforce any law which
s!.all abridgo the privileges or imnauniues Of
| citizens OF tho unitod States. The alneud-
mont contains no prohibition Of the nuthori-
ty to ahridge tho rights which aro held nj
citizens Of the State. Tho Supreme Court
had held tiat such distiuction existed. The
Court Ind recently said:
II. thcn there iB difference between tho privileges
and iumunities belonging to citizen Of ths United
sts.e4 Such, aud thasa belonging II tie s!t.zen e
tho Stae such, thu hitter must rest tor te!r author
iy aud protection where They have heretofore teacd
for thsy arc not embraced by this paragraph Of th
amendment. Tho Court also say that. with feq
exceptions s-suct, for instance, ~ tho prohi.,io,
ft4tn 0f
urasIng the obligations Ut contracts,-the entsso do
Iusln Of tho privileges sud iumuulties Of citizens
ts btEtes u above detued 1les within tho cuhstit
tlousl aud legislative powers OF the ataes and With
OUT that Of tue Feltsral Government; aud the cour
hold that tho Fourteenth Amendment maker no alter
alton In this particular.
Aro tho rights given by this law State o
Federal? Even treating tho law as = com
'nercial regulation, it cannot apply to tray.
elc1s from ono point to another within .
State. There Is 10 question tint Congress
1nay provide who sl!all be eligible to sit OF
iures in tho United StatcB Courtst but thi
bll provides that any citizen Of the Unitot
States mny sit on Iurlea in tho State courts
In recent case the Supreme Court decide,
TINT tho right to practice in the courts Of
t;tato IL not right pertaining under til
Fourteenth Amendment to citizen Of III
! United Statos, but rests on citizenship Of IL
State. II Congress cannot grant the riyh
| to citizen OF tho United States to prautic
in stato courts, upon what ground eau It L
claimsa TINT It can grant the right to sit o
juries? II the right to sit on jurics pei
taincd to any citizen Of the United States a
r such, then any citizen residing iu auy otAe
State might claim the right to sit ~ q juro
. III Massachusetts,. II Congress con provid
q rho Quail Rlt on fprIea In Stnta cpurtf