Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1880-03-19

Nl0HtN'tAAt, ll''iils1N, NllltiitN9Nl bliN NNtly
other form Of compulsory service for the
benefit, pleasure or caprice Of Others. 1t
was Intended TO render every one within
the domain of the Republic freeman, with
the right TO follow the ordinary pursuits of
life without other restraints than such as
are applied to all Others, and to enjoy equal
ly with them the earnings of his labor. But
il conlers no political rights; it leaves the
States free, rs before its adoption, to deter
mine who shall hold their offices and parti-
cipaie in the administration Of their laws.
A similar prohibition OF slavery and invol-
untary scrViiudo was in the constitution of
the several States previous TO its adoption
| by the United States; and was never held
to confer any political rights
On the 18th Of December, 1865, this amend
ment was ratified, that is, the official procla-
nation of its ratification was then made; and
| in April of the following year the civil rights
| act was passed, its first section declares that
all persons born ia the United States, and not
subject to any foreign power, excluding In
dams moi taxed, are "citZens of the United
States and that "sueh citizens, of every
race and color, without regard to any pre-
yious condition of slavery or involuntary
seryltude, except rs punishment for crime,
Of which the purity shall have been duly
| convicted, shall have the same right in
| tNtl1 tNAtlNt ull ltillNDll III lnt bHlltNl
| States TO make and enforce contracts, To sue,
be parties and give evidence, to inherit, pur-
chase, Ioase, SELL hold and convey real aud
personal property, and TO full and equal ben
eft Of all laws and proceedings for the secu-
| ity of persons and property as is enjoyed by
white persons. This legislation was intended
! to secure to all persons in the United States
| practical freedom. But its validity was ques-
toned in many quarters entitled TO consider
alton, and some of It's provisions not long at
forwards were declared by State courts to be
| beyond the constitutional authority of Con
| gresS OiOwline VS.. Commonwealth, 3 Bush,
| 81 There We're also complaints made that
Notwithstanding the amendment aholishng
slavery aud involuntary seryitude, except
! for crime, the freedmen were, by legislation
in some of the Southern States, subjected to
such burdensome disabilities in the acquls
ton and enjoyment ofproperly, and the pur-
suit OF happiness, ns 10 render their freedom
Of little value. (Saughter- House Cases, rs
! Wall, iOD There were, besides, complaints
| Of the existence, in those sections, of Il feel
| ing Of II dislike towardsc citizens of the North
seeking residence there, and towards such of
their own citizens as had adhered to the Ma
tlonal Government during the war; which
could not fail 10 find expression in hostile
aud discriminating legislation. II is imna-
tcrlal whether these complaints were fully
justified or not; they believed bymany
! per3ou5 to he well founded To remove the
cause Of them; to obyiale objections To the
validity Of legislation similar to that con
tanned IN the first section Of the civil rights
aet to prevent the possibility Of hostile and
discriminating legislation in future by u State
against any citizen Of the United States, and
the enforcement of any legislation already
had and tU secure tO all persons within the
jurisdiction Of the States the equal protection
Of the laws, thciirstsecton Of the Fourteenth
amendment was adopted. It's first clause
declared who are citizens Of the United
States and Of the States. It thus removed
from discussion the question, which had pre-
yiuusly been debated, and though decided
not settled by the bred scott case, whether
descendants Of persons brought to this coun-
try and sold ~ slaves were citizens within
the meaning Of the Constitution. It also re-
cognllcd, If ii did not create, Il National cit
izenship, as contradistinguishcd from that of
the States. But the privilege or duty, which
ever il may be called, of acting as Il juror in
the courts Of the country is not an incident
Of citizenship. Women are citizens; 80 are
the aged above sixty and children in their
minority; yet they arc not allowed in Vir-
| gina to act ns jurors. Though some Of these
are in all respects qualified for such service,
no one will pretend that their exclusion by
law from the jury list impaira their rights rs
citizens.
The second clause of the first section ofthc
amendment declares that no State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunltlcs of citizens of
the United 5talcs' In the 5aughter.llousc
eases it was held by II majority Of The court
that this clause had reference only 10 priv
ilcgcs aud immunitlcs Of citizens Of the
United States, rs distinguished from thO3e Of
citizens Of the States, and, therefore, did not
apply 10 those fundamental civil rights
which belong TO citizens of all free govern
mcnts, such such rs the right 10 acquire and
enjoy property and pursue happiness, sub
jeCt only 30 such Just restraints rs might lbs
prescribed for the general good. If this con
struction be correct there can be no prctensc
that the privilege or duty Of aching asa juror
in State court Is within the inhibition Of
the clause. Nor could il be within that in
hibition If "a broadercOnstruetio were given
tD the clause, and it should be held ~ contend
ed by the minority Of the court in the Slaugh
tcr-llousc eases, that il prohibits the denial
or abrdgemcht Of any those fundamental
privileges ana immunites which Of right
belong 81 the citizens Of all free gov
crnmcnis and with which the Dccls-
raliOn8 Of Independence proclaimed that
ali men were endowed by their Creator aud
10 secure which governments were insti
tulrd amongmcn. These fundamental rights
were secured, previous 10 the amendment,
10 citizens Of each State IN the other States
by the second section Of the fourth ariclcOf
the Constitution, which declares that "the
citizens Ol cach State shall be- entitled to all
privileges aud lmmunilics Of citizens in the
several 5iatet" Among those privileges and
D g,plsuHaI that
duty or jury service was included.
The third clause in the first section Of the
amendment declares that no State "ehall
deprive uuy person Of lie, liberty OF prop
crly without due process Of law" II will not
be- contcndcl that this clause conleH upon
the citizen any night b. serve as q juror in
the State courts IL exists in the constiti
ton Of ncHriy ull the States, aud IA only an
additional security against arbitrary dcpriy
alton vi iilc aud liberty, md arbitrary spoil
ation Of property. II means that neither
cln be taken, or the enjoyment thereof i'm
paired, except iu the course Of the regular
administration Of the law Ia the established
tribunals The existence Of this clause in
the amrudurnl b. tp me pcrsuasiyc afgu-
meut that those who framed IL, and the egis-
ntnros NJ The Stto5 which adopted ibneycr
contemplated tIllt the prohibition was 10 be-
judicial tribunals rs previous prohibitions
upon lnc Stbei bad always becu enforced.
ID congrs. could, us an appropriate means
10 enforce the prohibition, prescribe criminal
prosecutions iOr o. ininction against logis-
lntpr. Judges and other Oilicor of the States,
II would De- authorized to frame "a vast portion
of thrir laws, lDr there are icw subjects upon
which legislation can Doe hal besides life,
liberty and propety IN determining what
constitutes "a deprivation Of property II might
prescribe the conditions upon which property
shall De- acquired and held aud declare as
tU what auhIcrH property rights shall exist.
ln determining what constitutes depriyu-
lion ~ liberty, % might prescribe IN what
way aud by what means the liberty Of the
citizen shall be doomed protected. In pre-
sedbIug punishment FOR deprivation Of life,
20 might prescribe o. code of criminal por-
ccdure. al this anil much more might be
done DO u ones ba admitted, "a the court as
cHa bog ihis clse, TINT Congress can authorize
d.. a.