The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-04-01

Italian republics OF the Middle Ages2 According
70 the classification OF writers on government,
Genoa under It's doges. Florence under its dukes
and Poland under It's kings were republics. Why
NAV not Congress take that form OF republican
government now existing IN France or tnat
lately existing IN spain, or any o. the
republican forms OF past ages-tnat,
England under Cromwell, or even that OF Poland.
There Is no reason other than this that there are
OF American republican government TO winch the
trainers OF the constitution referred and by which
ited the courts must say whenever the question
is brought before them. What, otherwise could
lied state
A GOVERNMENT OF MILITARY DUKES
In all that nave said an Justified by recent
this Court, speaking by It's late Chief Justice.
tered these memorable words which viii live ia
constitutional history so long as the constitution
there be no loss or separate and indie
their union under the constitution, but il
may be not unreasonably said that the pre-
servation OF the states and the maintenance
OF their governments are as much within the de-
sign ana care OF tue constitution as the preserva
tlon OF the Union and the maintenance OF the
national government. The constitution, in all It's
provisions, looks TO an indestrnctibe union.
posed OF lndestructible States.n frexas a. White,
Z WALL 1851 The only principle That can JUS
thy the legislation now In question, 4 II be
cnolce or means TO prevent a State violating
the proniDitory clauses OF the late amendments
State would otherwise have done, in order 10
make sure that they are not done Improperly.
the states may, every one OF them do what New
York and Massachusetts now do. IN securing the
right or all cltlzenseto vote. without regard 20
race color or previous condition OF seryltude bur
tor fear that they WIN not continue TO do SO Con-
greSs may, IL lS claimed, register the voters anu
receive and count the votes And II il may 40
that IL may do any other thing that Ia 10 be done
by government III an election; III short, take
cnlnery or elections. And what is true or voting
IS, as snail endeavor to show more fully here
after, true also of every other subject within the
n
almost every subject OF government. For what ID
there III the world Tor state legislation but
ellie, liberty ana property,n und the s.protection
OF tue laws ~ II the validity OF the present egis
lation is affirmed one may afnrm the validity OF
liberty, property and protection by the law. II IS
Idle TO answer that sucn an attempt VIII never be
maze. VINO can tell what, In
TILE FRENZY or FUTURE PARTIES,
may not be attempted VINO That has seen the
what may not be done or attempted in some or
The times to conner one oil the most extraordi-
aency OF mAor,tiss 10 Cypress mInorties,
and TO trample upon :, all obst uctlons
iully watched the political events or the last
decade must nave seen constantly accelerated
tion OF federal authority. THIS has been brought
about BY the acuon OF good men Is wen as
bad, in ooliviousness or tue truth that every
NEW POWER ADDED TO THR NATION
Is Just SO much suDtracted rom the States.
preme Court would, OF course. be out OF
place. Its great but single function y 10
consequences what they may. My argument,
therefore. VIII consist OF an endeavor 70 establish
the following Two propositons:-
FfTSt-Thc natural Interpretation of the Ian
guage OF the new amendments does not Justify the
present Legislation.
Second-Il the natural Interpretation did justify
IT, yet, as the language Is susceptible or different
one tine latter must be preferred as that alone
which IL was understood by the people.
Inc natural Interpretation OF the amendme nts
does not justify the Legislation. No StaIe-thls -
the language-Shal make or enforce any law which
snail abrldge tue privileges lmmunlties OIL cIti-
zens oil the Uniseo states, or deprive any person
OF life, liberty or property without due process OF
law or deny 10 any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection OF the laws; no State shall
deny abrdge the right OF citizens OF tue United
Stafes 10 vote, without regard 70 race, color.
previous condition OF servitude. State is
corporate body, aud can act only ny It's corporate
authorities. Untl these corporate authorities
have acted the state has not violated the prohiDl-
ton. Congress. therefore. must move alter the
State. not before il. But as yet no state mas
moved, 80 lar as We are informed. Failure to
provide remedy for . wrong Is not the same
as ueprivIng OF right. IL il were
So then Congress might examine the codes
tas states ana II o1ad iSeT n
70 repeal q part oil It's laws Tor the protection or
rights or the punishment OF crimes the national
government could not supply the deficiency.
IL could hardly be claimed that these
PronDOn require o any more more s o. the state
OF them II the same mad been contained In their
own constitutions. Then. surely, their doing
federal InterposiIon. state inacton, therefore, is
CAUSE FOR FEDERAL ACTION.
teading to deprive citizen OF MS rights before
Congress can interfere. Snould State Leglsla-
without due process OF law its action would be i
nudity. What, IN that event. might Congress do
Provide legal means Tor establishing the nudity.
What legal means did Congress long ago provide
for establishing the nullity OF an e1 post dct0 law
or law impalT1ng the obligation OF contracts or
bill OF attalnder An appeal the federal courts
Has not mat proved aaeQuatef The whole question
may q stated "a tnese wUrus;@how may .ngress
not toe converse OF prohibition. The pronloi
tlons do not amount 70 guarantees Iney DO
not require the states 10 make sure tnaL no
shall be deprived Of lie, liberty or property With
out law. Tue prohibitory amendments act upon
States are nterdlcted from certain things and
Congress may enforce the interdct that does not
prove That Congress may do the converse tnlngs
Because the States are prohibited az would be q
strange inference that Congress IS authorized
When the constitution says 10 the states "lou
shall noir Lnat Is not the same thing a. saying 70
Congress, You shann OF "iou may.r II IL were
80 there would be found a strange omission in the
constitution. wide en- ougn 10 let IN many OF tae
mischieis which tue prohibitions were In tended
remedy. Congress Is not W these amendments pro-
niDtted. IL IL only tne states winch are. II IN
consequence Of toe prohibition upon the states.
things winch tue states forbidden 40.
congress II not Iorbioden 10 pass a law apridsing
the privileges and lmmunitIes OI citizens or deny
ing 70 certain persons tne equal protection Of the
laws. But suppose state, not content with lss
present laws. to ue about to act aggressiyeiy and
thus 10 violate toe prohibition, may speculate
upon what Congress could, In that event, enact.
prohibited. Zoe federal Legislature can act only
BY statute, TO be put In execution Dy the Execu-
tive ana the Courts. Could Congress authorize
the Executive 10 do anYtninR against tue reealci-
trant STATE 1t Il dllicun 10 see wnatt could EN-.
power the President to do.
II MUST ACT THROUGH TnE COURTS
And the only question Is, " hat appropriate action
could Congress Authorize 10 be taken the courts
TO enforce the prohibition, that Is to prevent or
redress the Nlolatlony The remedy Is 10
nulhfy the action when the State snould
not nave ordained permitted. Equality
before the law ls the general aim VI tile
amendments. Inat - secured by nulliiyIng inc
quallty-;nat Is, Tor example, uy declaring that
Whatever the state grants 10 its wnIte citlzens
shall for that reason be the rlgut OF the Dack.
Tnls rule would eXecu'e Itself Ia most cases.
TAKE that clause OF the fourteenth amendment
wntch 0rDds a state make or en- orce law
aDrdglng the privileges aud immunites ol cIti-
zens VI tne United states. The state cannot
enforce law untn IL - made; H. therefore, It