The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1875-06-24
VOLUME X.---NO. 40.
Lifelong Democratic Judge Declares the
Constitutionality Of the Civil Rights Act.
W1NoNA, MINI, .

W1NoNA, MINI, June g.
Judge R. R. Nelson, of the United States
District Court, now in session, to-day rendered
an opinion affirming the constitutionality Of
the supplemental Civil Rights law. As Judge
Nelson has been a lifelong Democrat his en-
phatic opinion produces no little astonishment
among politicians, as we'll as lawyers. His
opinion was 6 ven in response to request by
the grand jury, before whom case was
brought by the District Attorney under the
Civil Rights bill. After reciting the provis.
ions of the last three amendments to the Con.
stitugion, and after alluding to the celebrated
slaughter-house decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States, Judge Nelson proceeds:
II call your attention to this case for the
reason that several distinguished Federal Dis
trict Judges and an eminent Circuit Judge, in
instructing grand juries upon the presentation
of similar question, have considered that the
Interpretation by the United States Supreme
Court of this first section of the Fourteenth
amendment, is judgment cgainst the consti-
tutionality of the law under consideration, and
have, therefore, given negative reply to the
question propounded. With great respect for
the opinions of these judges, I cannot assentto
their conclusions, and while have no sympa-
thy with this kind of Congressional legislation,
and believe that the State government should
punish all wrong or outrage of this character,
committed within its limits, still | think where
race, color, or nativity or political belief fur
nishes the only reason for the commission of
such wrong or outrage, proper occasion
arises for the exercise of the power of Con-
gress under this amendment The objection
urged against such q law is that it seeks to
punish in the Federal Courts violation of
certain privileges which pertain to State cit
izenship. 1t is not doubted that the punish
ment of an ordinary offense against the persons
of any race belongs to the State governments.
They were created for the purpose of protec-
ting liberty and the pursuit of individual hap
piness, and should legislate for this object.
Yet, as the Fourteenth Amendment creates
citizenship and guarantees 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 Govern
ment, and are under its protection. 1t will be
conceded I think, that State legislation, ma
king it an offense to refuse the enjoyment OF
hotel accommodations to white persons, and
permitting the exclusion of all other persons
would be repugnant to the amendment. lfso,
cannot Congress interposc until some unfriend.
ly and discriminating State law is passed?
Must it confne its action &c correct an obnoxious
legislation, not restrain individuals? In the
case of McCulloch vs. the State of Maryland
18th Wheaton, BIB. 400 and 437) the construc-
tion of the grant of legislative power, under
the Constitution as it stood before the recent
amendments, was fully discussed, and it was
decided that within the grant OF power to Con-
gress for the purpose of legislation, it may Sc
lect any proper means of etfecting the object in
view and may adopt any which might be aP,-
propriate 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 State had passed no
obnoxious law, and may also in advance, by
such enactmeuts as it may deem suitable and
necessary, remedy the evil against which the
amendment proposes to guard. If the opinion
in that case correctly represents the extent OF
Congressional legislation, the power OF Con-
gress can be exerted to put down all outragess or
discrimination on the part of individuals when
the motive originates only in race or color.
d6 not deem it necessary, at this time, 10 more
fully discuss this question. The law is, in my
ouinion. constitutional"