Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1879-03-05

| va bOaA eihohht tbat huo OpctatiOii
of those three last amendments com.
pletely changed the relations of the
State and the Federal Governments
as to Jurisdiction over the rights and
privileges Of citizens.
at would be tho vainest show Of
learning to attempt to prove by cita-
tions Of authority, that up to the adop-
tion Of the recent amendments, no
claim or pretense was set up that those
rights depended on the Federal Gov.
ernmcnt Tor their existence or protec-
tion, beyond the very few express lim-
itations which the Federal Constitu-
tion imposed upon the States-such,
for instance, as the prohibition against
er post facfo laws, bills Of attainder,
and the laws impairing the obligation
Of contracts. But with the exception
of these and few other restrictions,
the entire domain Of the privileges and
limmunities Of citizens of the States, as
above defined, lay within the constitu-
tional and legislative power of the
States, and without that Of the Fed.
eral Government Was it the purpose
OF the fourteenth amendment, by the
simple declaration that no State should
make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges and immunites
Of citizens Of The United States, to trans
fer the security and protection OF all
the civil rights which we have men
toned, from the States to the Federal
Government And where il is declar-
ed that Congress shall have the power
to enforce that article, was it intended
to bring within the power OF Congress
the entire domain Of civil rights here.
tofore belonging exclusively to the
States?
All this and more must follow, il the
proposition of the plaintiffs in error be
sound. For not only are these rights
subject to the control Of Congress
whenever in its discretion any of
them are supposed to be abridged by
State Legislation, but that body may
also pass laws in advance" such as are
now contemplated by these resolu.
tions, ''limiting and restricting the ex-
ercise or legislative power by the
States, in their most ordinary and
usual functions, as in its judgment it
may think proper on I'LL such subjects
And still further, such construction
followed by the reversal Of judgments
Of the Supreme Court Of Louisiana
in these cases, would constitute this
court perpetual consor upon all leg.
islation of the States, on the civil
rights of their own citizens, with au-
thority TO nullify such as it did not
approve as consistent with those rights,
as they existed at the time of the
adoption of this amendment. The ar.
gument we admit is not always the
most conclusive which is drawn from
the consequences urged against the
adoption Of particular construction
of an instrument. But when, as in the
case before us, these consequences are
so serious, so far-reaching and pervad.
ing, so great departure from the
structure and spirit Of our institutions,
when the effect is TO fetter and degrade
the State governments by subjecting
them TO the control Of Congress, in the
exercise Of powers heretofore univer.
sally conceded TO them of the most or.
binary and fundamental character,
when in fact 1t radically changes tho
whole theory of the relations of the
State and Federal Governments to
each other and Of both these govern
ments to the people; the argument
has q force that is irresistible, in the
absence of language which Expresses
such purpose too clearly TO admit Of
doubt.
We are convinced that no such results
,cere intended By the Congress ichich pro-
posed these amendments, nor By the Leg
isldiuresof the States ichich ratified them.
Can declarations now made as to the
intent and meaning of these amend.
ments change the right and the power
and the dutyofthe judicial branch unaid-
ed by, unawed by, uninnuenced by, any.
thing that subsequent Congress may
enact? That the language used by the
States, the Congress and the people IN
1870 shall be at the uncontrolled dis.
cretion Of majority Of succeeding
Congress. No, sir, il would be, as Mr..
Madison calls IL, the definition Of ty.
ranny" to suppose that judicial and leg
islative functions can possibly co-exist
in free land in the lame body and
yet it is the judicial power Of interpre-
tation that is claimed and exercised
by the spirit and language of these
resolutions.
Unfortunately the Senate, largely
under the guidance of the distinguish.
ed Senator from Vermont as the chair.
man Of the Judiciary Committee, has
as Is his custom and professed inten
ton, wholly contemned the meaning
and spirit of these decisions Of the Su,
preme Court, and embarked upon O
system OF legislation known as zen,
forcement laws" without regard to
the opinions of the Supreme Court
and as consequence in the late cases
Of Crukshank and of Reese, which
were so fully cited and ably comment
ed on by my honorable friend
from Alabama, Mr.. Morgan we fnd
that after pursuing most exhaustive
and interesting recital OF the law and
facts, and critically weighing bothinre.
, lation TO the thirteenth, fourteenth, and
, fifteenth amendments, the Supreme
Court have reached conclusion that
the enforcement laws do not contain
that necessary and appropriate" leg
islation which Congress is authorized
: TO enact to carry into effect the Con
stitution. Congress has not the power
. to pass any lar. The laws competent
for them to pass arc defined by the
: Constitution TO be those necessary ant
proper for carrying into execution the
powers vested in the Government o.
the United States or in any Depart
ment or officer thereof The decisions
I of tho Supreme Court Ia the cases L
( which | have referred, not only dis
mics the indictments which had beer
I found under the enforcement acts fol
for insufilciency and impcriection
) but they also declare in offec
! feet that no indictment can be drawr
under those laws which will be sus
tanned, because Congress had up {,
|, the time of that decision failed b,
$ necessary and appropriate" legisla
ton to carry into effect powers grant