Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-06-09
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.
Emphatic Declaration of Its Con-
stitUtiOnality.
Views OF a Federal Judge who Has
been q Lifelong Democrat.

Views OF a Federal Judge who Has
been = Lifelong Democrat.
WNONA, Mimi, June S.-Judge r. r.
Nelson, Of the United States District
Court, now n session, to-day rendered an
opinion affirming the cOnstitutiOnality of
the supplemental Civil Rights law. As
Judge Nelson has been a life long Demo-
crat, his emphatic opinion produces no lit
tie astOnishment among politicians, as
well as lawyers. His opinion was given in
response to a request by the grand jury,
before whom a case was brought by the
District Attorney under the Civil Rights
bill. After reciting the provisions of the
last three amendments to the Constitution,
and after alluding TO the celebrated slaugh-
ter-house decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States, Judge Nelson pro-
ceeds:
81 call your attention to this case for the
reason that several distinguished Federal
District Judges and an eminent Circuit
Judge, in instructing grand juries upon the
presentation Of a similar question, have
considered that the Interpretation by the
United States Supreme Court of this first
section of the Fourteenth amendment, is a
judgment against the cOnStitutiOnality Of
the law under consideration, and have,
therefore, given a negative reply to the
question prOpOunded. With great respect
for the opinions Of these judges, l cannot
assent 10 their conclusions, and while l
have no sympathy with this kind of Con-
gressiOnal legislation, and believe that the
State government should not punish ;all
wrong or outrage of this character,
committed within its limits, still 1 think
where race, color, or nativity or political
belief furnishes the only reason for the COM
mission of such wrong or outrage, a proper
occasion arises for the exercise Of the pow
er of Congress under this amendment.
The objection urged against such a law is
that it seeks to punish in the Federal
Courts a violation of certain privileges
which pertain TO State citizenship. It is
not doubted that the punishment of Ordi-
nary ofiense against the persons Of any race
belongs TO the State governments. They
were created for the purpose Of protecting
life, liberty and the pursuit of individual
happiness, and should legislate for this
object Yet as the fourteenth
amendment creates citizenship and guaran-
tees the equality of all citizens before
the law, think Congress can provide for
the punishment of individuals who deprive
any person Of the enjoyment Of the rights
Of citizenship and legal equality, solely on
account of race or color. These rights and
privileges are derived from the Federal
government, and are under its protection.
1t will be conceded, think, that a State
legislation, making it an Offense to refuse
the enjoyment Of hotel accommodations to
white persons, and permitting the exclu-
sion of all other persons would
be repugnant to the amendment, If so,
cannot Congress inteTpOse until some un-
friendly and discriminating State law is
passed? Must it confne its action TO cor
rect obnoxious legislation, not restrain in
dividuals? In the case Of McCullOch vs..
the State of Maryland Oath Wheaton, PIP.
400 and 437) the construction of the giant
Of legislative power, under the COnstitu-
ton as il stood before the recent amend
ments, was fully discussed aud it was de-
cided that within the grant of power to
Congress for the purposes of legislation,
il may select any proper means of efieCting
the object in view and may adopt
any which might be appropriate
and which were conducive to
the end. Applying the reasoning of the
court TO this case, where the express power
to enforce the provisions Of the amendment
is given in the fifth section, it seems to me
that Congress can legislate, even though a
State had passed no obnoxious law, and
may also in advance, by such enactments
as it may deem suitable and neCessa-
", remedy the evil against which
the amendment proposes to guard.
If the opinion in that case correct
" represents the extent of Congress
si0nal legislation, the power Of Congress
can be exerted to put dOTn all outrage 0r
discrimination on the part of individuals
when the motive originates only in race
or color. l do not deem it necessary, at
this time, to more fully discuss this ques-
tion. The law is, in my opinion, consti-
tutiOnal