The daily gazette., 1875-03-12

py the reversal Of the judgments of the
supreme Court of Louisiana in tbesa
cases, would constitute this court a per
Petual censor upon all legislation Of the
states, on the civil rights of their own
citi2ens, with authority to nullify such
AZ IL old not approve as onsistent with
tnose rights as they existed at the time
OF the adoption of this amendment. The
argument we admit is not alwavs the
most conclusive which is drawn from the
consequences urged against the adoption
OF particular construction of an in
strument; But when, as in the case be-
lore U.S. these consequences are so seri-
Gus, SO far-reaching and Deryadinp. SO
great departure from the structure and
spirit OF our institutions; when the ef
fect Is to fetter and degrade the State
governments by subjecting them to the
control OF Congress in the exercise of
powers heretofore universally conceded
to them OF the most ordinary and fun
damental character; when in fact IL
radically changes the whole theory of
the relations OF the State and Federal
governments to each other, and of both
these governments to the people. the
argument has force that is Irresistible
In the absence of language which ex-
presses such purpose too clearly to ad.
NIT Of doubt.
We are coavinced that no such results
aSere intended by the Congress which pro-
posed these amendments nor by the leg
islatures of the States which ratified
them.
The same declaration in substance is
repeated in the dissenting opinion de-
livered in the case, and do not under
stand these doctrines to be denied by
any member of the Supreme Court.
The question in the case then under
consideration was in the application
OF the doctrine to the facts then before
the court; majority being of opinion
the rights and privileges" involved
In the consideration were net those
pertaining to the plaintiffs in error, as
citizens Of tile United States, but were
left solely to the jurisdiction and con-
troll OF the State constitution and laws
of Louisiana, and some of the Judges
dissenting on that issue. The court
moderately stated that it would radi-
cally change the whole theory of the
relations of the State and Federal gov
ernments to each other and of both
these governments to the people if
different construction were admitted
and the whole domain of the State con-
troll of internal affairs was handed ov-
or to the will of Congress. Why. sir,
it would give to Congress veto on
every act Of every State Legislature,
and it would be far better at once to
save the useless trouble and expense
of the State governments and allow
the entire legislation, local and general
of the thirty sevenStates to be conduc-
ted in these two Houses of Congress.
But, as said, all the judges agreed as
to the proper dc main of the State and
the Federal governments. Mr. JUS
tice Swayne, delivering, his dissen-
ting opinion in the same case, says:
The citizen of State has the same
fundamental rights as q citizen of the
United States, and also certain others,
local in their character, arising from his
relation to the State, and in addition,
those which belong to the citizen of the
United States, he being in that relation
also. There may thus be double citi-
zenship, each having some rights peculi-
ar to itself. 1t is only orer those schich
belong to the citizen Of tie United States
that the category here in question
throws the shield of its protection. ALI
| those which belong to the citizen OF q
State, except as to bills OF attainder, eS
post fdcto laws, and laws impairing the
obligations Of contracts, are left to the
guardianship Of the bills of rights. consti-
t9tions and lalrs of the States respectively.
Those rights may all be enjoyed in every
State by the citizens Of every other
State by virtue of clause 2, section A,
| article /, Of the Constitution of the
United States as it was originally franz
ed. This section does not in any wise
affect them; such was not its purpose.
could read the dissenting opinions
of other judges, showing that they all
concur in the principle in the case then
before them. Some of them consider
ed that there was violation by law
of Louisiana of the fundamental rights
and immunities and privileges which
belong to citizens as citizens of the
United States, those "immunities and
the privileges" which the original Con
stitution secured and which had been
heretofore defined by Mr.. Justice
Washington in the case of Corfield gs.
Coryell, and whose definition had been
accepted from that day to this, and Is
cited In the very case from which /
read, and is found later in case deci-
ded In 1878, in II Wallace, The Rail
road as, Burnell. Soon after the
Slaughter-house cases came the case of
Bradwell gs. The State, where woman
proposed to test her right and privi-
lege to be admitted to practice law in
the courts of the State of Illinois, which
by the Judgment of the supreme court
| of that State was refused her. She
sued out a writ of error in the Supreme
Court of the United States upon that
judgment, and it was ably and elo-
quehtly argued in her behalf by an
advocate no less distinguished than
the Senator from Wisconsin, MIR,
Carpenter and no counsel appeared
ON the other side. The whole battery
of the learning, the ingenuity, and the
eloquence of that distinguished Sena-
tor of which we are constantly witnes-
ses was displayed without returning
shot before that court; and yet there
was unanimous opinion adverse to
her admission. In delivering the opin-
ion which was concurred in by every
member, (Mr. Justice Brady stating
different reason for the opinion,) the