Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1875-05-07

a TO adjournment of the day previous.
! The following comprise the Gran
$ Jury, drawn and empaneled Mon
= day:
: Dougald Mcmillan, Foreman; inc
: E. Grow, Peter Rourk, William Wat
: ters. Jno. G. Wright, w. W. McRack
: en-, james 7 Carraway, George W
Bets, Lewis G. King, James C
Grimes, F. A. Newbury, Amos J
g. johnson. Librus Cooper. Ware,
= johnson, B. Witherington, James F
, Shine, Elvin Arts, Jno. B. Robinson
b. G. Worth.
The following is the charge to the
Grand Jury by His Honor on the sub
ject of Civil Rights:
[ feel it to be my duty, gentlemen,
to call to your attention aud express
the views l entertain in regard TO the
validity OF an act of the Congress OF
the Unit d States of recent date.
ailude to the Civil Rights law, Of in
my view it may be termed law. 1t
Is proper that should Say in the first
place that this, like all other acts
pissed by the Congress of the United
States, depends for its force and Va
lIdlty upon the power under the pro-
VISIONS Of the Constitution of the
United States IN Congress to enact it's
provisions.
The people OF the United States,
acting by their representa- yes IN the
cot ventI"n which framed our Consti-
tuition as It originally was, were car,.-
tui to reserve to the States all the
/ powers OF government not granted by
The great Charter then adopted. White
It may be true that the powers so CON
terred by the people on the Federal
Government may not only have been
such as were clearly expressed, but
also such as were necessarily implied
or to be inferred from the expressed
grants Of pow. r, yet it has never
been cOntended seriously that the
Federal Government ia time of peac
could properly exercise control
over the States which was Meth
er expressly authorIz ii by the Con
/ shtution or by nt cessary implication
/ have regarded it as my duty to
carefully consider the act referred to,
aud this l have done-not SO much
! with any view to any other result AS
! that the conclusion to which 1 might
| dTilSS Suouitl i9e cOTT6cU.
In deter mining upon the validity OF
auy act passed by n Legislative body,
it is we'll established rule that no
court will declare such act void, for
want OF power in the Legislature to
pass it, if any reasonable doubt IS en-.
tertalned as to that power. But if
conclusion is reached, undisturbed by
doubt, then it is as well corceeded
that it is the duty Of the court to de
clare it even if it be against the vail
dity of the law.
L charge you, gentlemen, that the
crimiLal provisions of this law are void
for want of authority in Congress to
enact such law.
The validity of the act in question
has not been determined directly by
the Supreme Court of the United
States; nor indeed could have been so
determined, for the law is Of to recent
date fer any question too have
arisen Oh its provisions and been
presented 10 that tribunal. I am
not, however. without authority for |
the opinion l express to you. In he |
Spring of 1873, the Supreme Court |
Of the United States decided the cases |
tnown as the Slaughter House cases, |
IN which Mr.. Justice Miller Ga Judge |
of the very first order of ability. |
even of that Court delivered the
opinion of the Court. The language !
OF this exhaustive and able opinion SO
fully illustrates the opinion I hold
that prefer to read to you the laI-
Guage of this eminent Judge.
It Should be remembered by You
that the question determined III that
case was as to the validity of law eff
- / 4 -
mainly resisted upon the ground that
it Was IN violation OF the Fourteenth
Amendment OF the Coz stitution of the
United States. 1t Will be conceded
that Congress had no power to pass
the law now under consideration.
unless that power had been given by
the provisions of the amendment NELL
toned His Honor here read
from Mr.. just ce Mlller's opinion
10 this decision there were three dls- |.
sebtirg opinions, but upon every
principle applicable to the subject now
being considered, there was nc divi-
sion Of opinion with the Judges
If other authorit~ was uece :s4ry, |
would refer to the more recent opin-
ION OF Mr.. Justice Bradley of the Su
preine Court of the United States Fit
ting with Judge Woods in the Circuit
Court at New Orleans in the case of
the United States VS.. CIuikshanks and
others speaking of the same constitu-
tin4al amendment, which, says: tue Oh
iect # the amendment was to restrh II
tie States, not the inhabitanta of the
States, as assumed by the government.
The consequeI c. of a concinsioD be-
Ing adopted as q law, that the provi-
sions of the Constitution are addressed
to each and every inhabitant, would
be the entire subversal OF the lnstltE
tions Of the States and the Immediate
consolidation of the whole land into II
consolidated empire whose authority
and process would wholly disregard
the / mits aud laws of the States"
Again, the invaiidity of this act was
Etnmons of the Circuit Court for tie
District of Tennessee, in his charge to
the Grand Jury. The force of the
opinion of Judge Emmons is most SEN
sibly felt when we are reminded of his
ability as lawyer and his well estab-
lialed reputation for other essential
gu ;iities of a great Judge. In the
charge referred to, Judge Emmons
advised the Grand Jury that they
could rot properly find a ue biz
against any person charged tn-
der the provisions of this law
for the reason that Congress had
not the power 10 pass the law, and will
mention that my esteemed friend and
brother, the District Judge for the
Western District of this state, does
not essentially differ with me in this
opinion. This information is OF very
recent date and affords me very great
pleasure.
There have been no expressions OF
opinion to the contrary by any Fede
rs1 Judge or Court which has been
brought to my attention.
The session was taken up with the
argument of one bankrupt and one libel
case, the first of which was argued and
the other continued by consent.