The daily gazette., 1875-03-12


sress. The :. fourth section pro.
vides for the inviolability of
the public debt off the United States
and prevents the possible payment OF
any debt OF government engaged In
hostility to the United States. All
therefore that we find Is that If there
Dc sny warrant whatever for this
measure In the Constitution it must
be found in the second paragraph of
the first section which forbids ana
State from abridging the privileges
and lmmunities Of citizens of the Uni.
ted States and inhibits any State from
depriving any person Of life, liberty.
or property without .due process OF
law.
Now, Mr.. President, this bill refers
IN N no way to life, liberty, or property.
NO suggestion has been made that any
one within State Is deprived Of eitI.
or, or that this act slntended to rene.
dy anyesuch legislation by any State.
The act must be intended to enforce
the privileges and immunities of q
citizen OF the United States, Withheld
from such citizens by some State law
and II the matters pointed out in this
bill shall be shown to be privileges
and immunities of citizen of the Uni.
ted States, that is to say, privileges
and immunities which belong to them
because Of sach citizenship, then we
can see there may be justification for
this proceeding on the part of Con-
gress. To put my proposition in
plain words, If the privilege of enter.
ing an inn in the State of Pennsylya-
MIA or OF entering upon a steamboat
or railway chartered by the laws of
that State, or.of entering a theatre or
concert hall or any place af amuse-
ment in the State of Penniylvania-
privileges, conveniences or pleasures,
which have their existance within
that State by virtue of the laws of
that State AMI cannot have existence
beyond the boundry of that State
simply because the laws of the State
cease to have power beyond the State
limits-if it can be shown that the
fact OF my right in Pcnnsylvania to
purchase ticket to enter a theatre or
to obtain accommodation at a hotel is
a privilege and immunity by reason of
my citizenship of the United States,
and that the Government is bound to
protect me in that under the four
teenth amendment, then there NAV be
warrant for this bill. But what pow
er did this amendment mean to confer
on CongressY Did it mean to give the
United States power to protect citi-
zens in their rights as citizens of tile
United States, or did it go further and
propose to protect them in their rights
as citizens Of the State? There is the
precise line. There are certain rights
and privileges belonging to citizens of
the United States--long and well
known and detined-but there are in.
Vulnerable other rights and privileges
derived from the State laws and regr
lations and enjoyed In right of citi.
| zenship OF State, and not by virtue
OF Federal citizenship. II the Gov.
ernment of the United States hos the
power to enter q State and take con.
troll of that vast domain of rights un
der the State regulation which citi
zen acquires by virtue of the Stat.
laws which are regulated by the State
which are conferred by the State
which heretofore always in the his
tory of this Government have beer
protected by the State, and the Stat,
alone-if the United States can as
sumo guardianship of all those, ther
the State laws and the State govern
ments are absolutely worse than use
less; they are mere laughing stock
existing only at the pleasure Of Con
Igress and the Executive, liable to b,
disturbed, modified, or overthrown a
Z n OH "a n ~ ,rio al, 4
out regard to State constitutions O.
supposed reservations of power In tn,
States or the people.
This is no extreme view OF mine
1t has been distinctly proclaimed b,
the Supreme Court Of the United
States, and as l understand 1t ever,
judge who has passed upon this ques
tion, whether concurring In the opin
lon OF the court or dissenting because
to his refusal to apply the principle tc
the particular case in question, has
nevertheless agreed in recognizing the
ldistinction have referred to and itl
necessary effect. Let me read the
lengaage of Mr.. Justice Miller In 1875
In delivering the opinion of the Su
lpreme Court in the Slaughter-houst
case:
1t would be the valnest show Of learn
ing to attempt to prove by citations O
authority that, up to the adoption o
the recent amendments, no claim O.
pretense was set up that those right
depended on the Federal Governnien
for their existence or protection, beyont
the very few express limitations whicl
} the Federal Constitution imposed u Dol
the. States-such. for instance, xs th,
prohibition against es post facto laws
bills of attainder, and laws impairin,
the obligation of contracts. But witt
the exception OF these and a few othe
exceptions, the entire domain of th
privileges and immunities of citizens Q
the States, as above defined, lay With
the constitutional and Legislative powe
Of the States, and without that of tn
Federal Government. Was it the pur
pose Of the fourteenth amendment. b
! the simple declaration that no Stat
: should make or enforce anJ law whie
shall abridge the privileges and immu
mites of citizens OF the United States
to transfer the security and protection
OF all the civil rights which we hav
mentioned from the States to the Fede
, raj Governmentf And where II ia do