The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1875-06-09
MINNESOTA.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.

WIS0NA, June S.-JudgG H. Il. Nelson,
Of the United States District Court, now
in session, to-day rendered an opinion Af.
lirming the cOnstitutionality OF the sup.
plCmcntary civil rights law, which is be.
lievcd to be the first adjudication in this
direction by n Federal Judge, As Judge
Nelson has been life long Democrat,
his emphatic opinion produces no little
astOnishmGnt among politicians rs well MS
the lawyers. The opinion was given in
response to request made by the grand
Jury before whom the case was brought
by the District Attorney under the civil
rights bill. After rGGiting the provisions
Of the last three amendments to the con-
stitutOn, and after attending to the eel
ebratcd slaughter house decision Of the
Supreme Court Of the United States,
Judge Nelson proceeds: call your at
tcntion to this case for the reason that
several distinguished Federal District
Judges aud one eminent Circuit Judge in
instructing the grand jurics upon the pre-
scntaton Ofa similar question have con-
sidcred that the Interpretation by the t.. $.
Supreme Court Of this first section Of the
fourteenth amendment is judgment
against the COnstitutiOnAlity OF the law
under consideration, and have therefore
given u negative reply to the question
propOundcd. With great respect for the
opinions Of these Judges, ! cannot consent
to their conclusions and while | have no
sympathy with this kind Of Congressional
legislation aud believe that the State gov.
ernmcnt should punish all wrongs or ont
RACES Of this character committed within
It's limits, still think that where race,
color, nativity, religious or political be-
lief furnishes the only reason for the
commission Of such wrong or outrage, n
proper occasion arises for the exercise Of
the power of Congress under this amend
mcnt. The objection urged against such
II law il that ii seeks To punish in the
federal courts violation Of certain
rights which pertain to State citizenship.
II il not doubted that the punishment Of
ordinary offences against persons Of any
race belongs to the State government.
They were created for tlN purpose Of pro-
tccting life, liberty aud the pursuit Of
individual happiness, md should lcgis.
late for this object. Yet, as the four
tcunth amendment creates citizenship
and guarantees the equality Of all citi-
zCns 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 State legislation
making it M oflcnsc to refuse the enjoy.
mcnt Of hotel accommodations by white
psrsOns, and permitting the exclusion Of
all other persons, would be repngnant to
the amendment. II so, can not Con.
grcss intcrposc until some unfriCndly
aud discriminating State law is passed?
Must it cOnlinc its action to correct oh.
noSiOus legislation and not restrain in.
divluals? In the case Of MCCOllOch ts.
the State Of Maryland, 4th Wheaton,
pages 400 and i37, the construction Of the
grant Of legislative power under the Con-
ns II stood before the recent
amendment was fully discussed. II was
decided that by the withingrant OF power
to Congress for purposes Of lCgisla.
tion it may select any proper mcans Of cf-
fCCling the object in view, and may adopt
any which might be appropriated and
which were conducive to the end. Ap.
plying the reasoning Of the Court To this
case, where the express power TO enforce
the provisions Of the amendment Is given
in tie 9th section, il seems that Congress
can lcgislatC even though State had
passed no obnoxious law, and may also
in advance by such enactment ns Il may
deem suitable and necessary, remedy
the evil against which this amendment
to guard II the opinion in
that ease correctly represents the extent
Of Congressional legislation, the power
Of Congress can bc Cxcrlch directly to
rnt down all outrage or discrimination
on the part Of individuals, when the mo-
tive originates only y in race OF color. |
,lo not deem II necessary At this time to
moro fully discuss this question, the law
in my opinion ls constitutional.