New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-09
THE CIVIL RIGHTS La ".
A DEMOCRATIC JUDGE AFFIRMS IT'S CON
STITUTIONALITY.

A DEMOCRATIC JUDGE AFFIRMS IT'S CON-
STITUTIONALITY.
OPINION OF UNITED STATES JUDGE NELSON AT WIN
ONA, MINN.-THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS IN
q DER THE AMENDMENTS TO ENACT SUCH LAW.
WINONA, MIMI, June S.-Judge K X. Nelson
the United States District Court now In session here
to-day rendered an opinion affirming the constuonahty
OF the Supplementary Civil Rights law. which Is believed
to be the first adjudication in this direction by Federal
Judge As Judge Nelson has been lifelong Democrat
his emphatic opinion produces no little astonishmeht
among politicians as well lawyers. Tho opinion was
given in response to request made by the Giand jury
before whom brought by the DistrctAttoriey
under the Civil Rights bill After recng the provisions
OF the last three amendments to the Constitution and
abiding to the celebrated decision OF the
Supreme Court of the United States, Judge Nelson says:
call your attention this for the reason that
several distinguished Federal District judges ana one
the presentation of similar question, considered
that the Interpretation by the United STATES supreme
Court OF this first section Of the Fourteenth Amendment
is Judgment against the cOnstitutionality OF the law
under consideration and have therefore given negative
for the opinions OF these Judges cannot assent to
their conclusions and while have no sympathy
with this kind Congressional legislation, and believe
that the state government should punish all wrong or
OF this character committed with MS limits Sli
think race color nativity religious or political
belief furnishes the only reason for the commission OF
such wrong or Outrage proper ocGas'on CONGRESS mrrs
under this amendment The Objection urged against
IL that Ii ks punsnln TIE
violation Of certain privileges which pertain 10 STATE
citizenship. II is not doubted that the punishment OF oiu
nary ofcscs against persons Of any race belongs 10
state governments They created zoe the purpose
OF protecting life liberty and the pursuit OF Individual
happiness, and should cgsatc for this object let az
the Nincteeuth Amendment creates citlzensnp
and guarantees equality OF all citizens Dc-
fore the law, I think Congress can provide
for the punishment Of ndiv iuas who deprive any per-
the enjoyment OF the rights of citizenship ana
legal equality, solely account OF race or color These
rights and privileges derived from the Federal Gov
crnment and under its protection IL VIII be con-
cced think that state legislation making IL an oHcise
10 refuse the enjoyment OF hotel accomno
dati0n to white persons and permitting the
exclusion OF all other persons w0nld De repugnaht
to the Amendments. If so, cannot Congress ntcrpose
until some unfriendly and discriminating state law Is
passed Must it cOntne Its action To correcting oDnOx
iOus legislation and not restrain individuals In the
case Of McCulOch against tho state OF Maryland u
Wheaton, DID, 400 1877 the construction OF the grant OF
legislative power under the Constitution as IL $1,000 p
fore the recent amendments fully discussed ana IL
was decided that within the grant of power to Congress
for purposes Of legislation may select any proper
means efacting the object in view and may adopt any
which mi ght appropriate and which were conducive
to the end Applying the reasoning OF the Court TO ths
where the express power TO ENFORCE te
of the Amendment is given in the fifth section,
it seems to me that Congress can lesisiate,
even though a state had passed no obnoxious
law, and may also, in advance OF such enact
ments as may deem suitable and necessary, remedy
the evil against which this amendment proposes 10
guard II the opinion in that correctly represents
the extent of Congressional legislation. the power OF
Congress can exered directly to put down all outrage
discrimination the part OF individuals when thef
motive originates only in color DO not deem IL
necessary at this time fully discuss tins question
The law. in my opinion. Is constitutional.