The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-05-15

Marriages between Whites, and BLACKS.
We publish in fu,l this u,s.rnfug the opin-
son az Judge HUouss, OF tic United states,
District Court, In the AfsbeGS-cof,stts case vi
EpaUsp KINNEY, whe had petltlon'ed 20 - o ee
discharged from The penitentiary OF W.T. lE
rin;a. His coniine ment was claimed 20 DC
Il, violation OF the Constitution and laws OF
the United STATES, his offence being only
that oil coiabi,j ng In Virginia with a white
won,an whom be had lawfully married 10
the District Of Columbia. We give the
opinion in Foil becauseit discusses at length
and with 8 reat wealth Of law-learning every
point Ehi eh the abIest of lawyers could faise
10 such ease, and makes it PLAIN 10 Tue
simplest mind that the decision ~ stficSly
aceor&inf, 10 the Constitution and laws OIL OIL;
che United States. 10 fact. Juage ao '''h.
has taken so much pains to SHOW us posi-
tiea to be Smpregnabie that his opinion
reads as if j had been intended to convince
even the most iatolerant OF neSroph'hsts
that the III i,ed States Court had no wrong
to remedy.
Judge sUGuEs draws a clear line OF dis
tinction between citizens OF the United
States al I'd citizens OF State. The r'Snts
OF a Cit zen of State are those which De-
long to hin, as a member OF society. Inc
rights al citizen Of the United States are
those which result from the fact that ois
State d one Of the United States. The cell
eora' I'd Slapchter-House cases decided py
the Supreme Court OF the United StateS
fur ash him with precedents here. he
que aes the law of Virginia forbidding men
or women to marry their uncies, aunts,
co nsins, &C., and thus reduces the contract
t! cory to au absurdity--that IS, the theory
hat the Federal Constitution forbids q State
10 prohibit her citizens from marrying any
body they prefer. He shows that the United
States Government has nothing in the
world to do with a Virginia citizens rights
sand privileges rs citizen Of Virginia. The
Judge plants himself upon "the law" He
I declares that he has nothing to do with the
Justice, or the proprieiy, or The policy, OF
the law, quoting ULPrAN to the effect that
slough itmay be very hard yet so the law
is written.
The Judge examines every constitutional
provision bearing upon the case, including
the one which provides that the equal pro-
lection of the law shall be denied to no per-
son within her jurisdiction by any State.
His discussion OF all these questions must
be read to be fully understood and appre-
ciated. We simply desire to let careless and
lazy readers-particular.y in the North
know that the5stcan present the case to
Judge HUGHES in no light in which he has
not already locked at it. ..r,.
Judge HUGHES says that only lawful con-
tracts made in one State can be enforced IN
another State. Contracts for usury, or for
polygamous or inccstuous marriages, could
be enforced il the contract OF KINNEY and
wife must be respected in Virginia because
entered into in the District OF Columbia.
But he clinches the matter by quoting de-
-cision OF the Supreme Court Of the United
States to prove that marriage is not.such
a contract rs the Federal Constitution con-
templates when it says that no State shall
pass any law impairing the obligation Of
contracts. KINNEY, says Judge HUGHES,
can no more bring into Virginia the marry
ing privileges Of citizen OF the District Of
Columbia than he could those OF citizen
OF Utah, even il he haA.been citizen OF
either or those Territories.
We refer the reader, however, to the
opinion itself. We have hardly touched its
strong peints. .@.,,s 's-'.' - ,