The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-05-15
ship; the Maryiander carries It on here b
right OF his national citizenship.
In The
sLAUGHTER-HoUss CASES

i +
sLAUGHTER-HoUss CASES
the Supreme Court OF the United States had
under review an act OF the Legislature of
Louisiana Incorporating company and
conierring upon it The exclusive privilege OF
slanghterng animals within defined area
adjoining the city OF New Orleans. Certain
butchers OF the vicinity, who were thus.de.
prIved OF the privilege OF exercising their
trade In that area, assaiIed the charter as
contrary to the pro vision OF the fourteenth
amendment OF the national Contitution
quoted above. But the Supreme Court held
that the privilege Of butchering animals
was OF the class belonging to persons as
citizens Of their State and not belonging to
them as citizens Of the United States. tt
therefore held that The legislative act abridg-
ing this right Of the New Orleans butchers
and contining it exclusively to a favored
corporation did not violate the fourteenth
amendment, or any law passed under it,
and could not be the subject of relief by a
Federal court, however unjust the State
law.
In the light OF this commentary, can 1t be
intelligenily contepded that the
LAWS OF VIRGINIA RELATING TO MARRIAGE
are obnoxious to the fourteenth amend
ment?
The ninth section OF chapter 104 of the
Code OF Virginia provides that emo man
shall marry his mother, grandmother, step.
mother, sister, daughter, granddaughter,
balf-sister, aunt, sons widow, wife's daugh-
ter, or her grandmother or stepmotber,
brothers daughter or sisters daughter"
The tenth section of the same chapter pro-
vidcs that no woman shall marry within de-
grees correlative with those defined in the
ninth section. ~
Among still other inhibitions OF marriage
the same Code, in the 1st section OF chapter
105, provides that sall marriages between
a white person and negro, and all mar
riages which are prohibited by law on ac-
count OF either Of the parties having Tor
mer wife or husband then living, shall nc
absolutely void without any decree OF di-
vorce or other legal process"
TIE PENAL PROVISIONS .-:.
arc as follows:
"If any person marry in violation OF the
ninth or tenth section Of chapter 104 OF the
Code be shall be confined in Jail not more
than six months, or fined not exceeding tive
hundred dollars, at the discretion OF the
jury"
"Any white person who shall intermarry
with negro, or any negro who shall inter-
fined in the penitcntiary not less than two
nor more than five years. Criminal Re-
yisal OF 1878, chapter vii. sections 5 and s.
1t is clear that l am bound by the author
tiles which have been cited 10 treat the
privilege OF marrying as belonging to the
class Of rights which person has as men,
ber Of society, and not TO the class which
he has by virtue Of the State in which he
resides, being a member OF the American
Union. II Virginia were in the mid ocean
or on the antipodal continent her control
over the rights and privileges Of her citi-
zens as members OF society, including mar
rage, would be no more certainly than now
unreStrained by any provision OF the ma
tional Constitution. The right to enact as
law any one OF the three prohibitions OF
marriage which have been quoted from the
Code as between her own citizens residing
within her own territory is as clear as the
right to make the other two. With the pro-
priety,
POLICY, OR JUSTICE
of such laws a court Of the United States
has nothingto do. AS individual citizens
their judges might possibly question the
policy of such State law; but as judicial
officers they can only inquire what is the
law. The fourteenth amendment gives no
power to Congress to interfere with the
right Of State to regulate the domestic re-
lations of its own citizens: and il State
enacts such laws as those which have been
quoted, the Federal courts must respect
them as they stand without inqulrlng into
the reasons OF them. However harsh q
State law may be, they can only say with
Ulpian, " "Hoc quiden, perqaam duruaa est,
Sed TIA LEX sCRIPTA EST.' .... T-r.' I
: The clause OF the fourteenth amendmenC
under review makes further dIstinction.
After declaring that no State shall make
any law which shall abridse the privileges
OF citizens OF the United States it adds:
" Nor deny to any person within its luris-
diclion the equal protection OF the laws"
Here is distinction between citizens OF
the United States and "any persons"
whether citizen or alien,. residing or. hap
pening to be within the borders Of State.
The declaratorv clause forbids any abrldg-
ment OF the rights of citizen Of the United
States; the remedial clause gives
EQUAL PROTECTION TO ALL TT.
persons whatever while within q States
borders. The amendment does not provide
that the privileges shall be equal, but it does
provide that protection shall be equal. 1t
establishes equality between all persons in
their right to protection, but does not con-
fer equality in the privileges they are to en-,
| Joy. 1t provides that whatever, privileges
the Constitution and laws OF the United
States confer upon citizen ms a citizen Of
the United States shall be enjoyed without
abridgment; and it provides that all per
sons within State, whether citizens OF the
United States or OF the State, or aliens, shall
be equally protected By the laws in whatever
privileges, whether equal or not equal, they
may have from the United States OF from the
State. However unequal their privileges
respectively, yet a foreigner, a citizen Of
another American State, and citizen OF the
State, shall have the benefit equally in the
State of all remedial laws for the recovery
of rights and of all legal safeguards ordained
for the protection Of life, liberty, and pro-
| perty.
I think it plain from this review that an
| EQUALITY OF PRIVILEGES -. .
is not enforced by the Constitution upon q
State in respect to its domestic laws for the
Government OF its own citizens as such
While they are within its jurisdiction. But
even il it did require an equality OF priTi-
leres. I do not see any discrimination against
either race in a provision OF law forbdding
any white or colored person irona marrying
another OF the opposite color OF the skin.
| n il iorbids colored person from marrying
white, it equally forbids a white person
from, marryins a colored. in its terms, and
for all ] know in its spirit, the law is pro-
bibition nut upon: both races alike and
equally. In the present case the white party
to the marriage is imprisoned as well as the
co!ored. q; :. = -.
think it clear, therefore, that no proYi-
~, 81. n hog