National Republican., 1883-01-24
The supreme Court and the "ISulsiuS Acts

admiration OF the great rcpuDhCan'
-4--
The Supreme Court and the " ISuISlriX Acts
The decision Of the supreme court, upon
case arising under the section Of the statutes
against conspiracy to deprive citizens of the
equal protection of the laws is explicitly di-
rcctcd against that construction of the four
tecnth amendment which would make 1t
operative upon individuals without regard to
states. The opinion says:
The language of the amendment does not leave
this subject in doubt. When the state has been
guilty Of no violation of its provisions, when 1t
has not made or enforced any law abridging the
privileges or immuuties OF citizens Of the United
states when no one of It's departments has deprived
any person OF life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, or dtnicd to amy person within
its Jurisdiction the equal protection Of the laws;
when, on the contrary, the laws OF the state as
enacted by its legislative construed by its judicial
and administered byHS CTcCtiire Departments, recog-
nizo mud protect the rights OF all persons the
amendment imposes no duty and coniers no
power upon congress
Congress enacted the civil rights bill of
1866 for the protection Of the unionists in the
states which had then recently been in re-
bcllion. 1t was far-rcachng enactment
and was intended to supply any deficiency
that might be found to exist 1t was drawn
and championed by as able and conservative
lawyer as LYMAN TRUMBuLL, then n sem
ator from Illinois. President JOHNSON vetoed
1t upon the ground that IL invaded the powers
of the states. 1t was made law, novcrthc-
less, by two.thirds vote in each house.
Then it was that, to place beyond all doubt
the power of congress to logislnto for the
| protection of citizens where the states should
| opprcss them or refuse such protection,
| the fourteenth amendment to the cOnstitu-
! ton was proposed. The only one of tho cx-
confederate states in which there was then
permanent state government. e, gov
ornment recognized by congress as valid
was Tennessee. The refusal of those states,
through their provisional governments, TO
ratify this amendment was what led to the
act of March 3, 1861 generally known as the
military reconstruction act, which declared
that there were no valid governments
in tho late insurrectionary states
and none which afforded adequate protection
to life, liberty and property. The struggle
then commenced between the respective adj
hcrcnis Of the president and congress. The
outcome was the formation of state govern
mcnts under the conditions marked out by
the act last referred to- and these were ad
mttcd to full relations with the union. Th,
ratification of the fourteenth amendment by
the requisite number of legitimate state lcgis
laturcs, and legislation by congress for its en
iorccmcnt soon followed. 1t Is very certain
that in the debates upon this Legislation
the prevailing idea with republican lead
crs like TRUMBULL, FEssENDEN, EDMUSDs
CoNKIING, FRELINGnUYsEN, HOWE, How
ARD, HARLAN, SnELLABARGER, BOUT
WELL, BINGHAM, BUTLER, and others wa
that appropriate legislation by con
gress for the enforcement Of the fourteenth
|, amendment ought to include a remedy for tn
denial by state Of equal protection for citi
, cns,whether that denial was affirmative, in tn
form of obnoxious local legislation, or hostil
decisions by state courts, or by the neglect q
the state executive authorities in the admin
istration ofnhhrs. 1t was maintained that
state might deny protection in fact while a
fording it in name. There might be apparen
> acQuicscenCc by tho state in its lcgislativ
forms, and indeed an ostcntatious show Of pei
feet compliance with the amendment, Will
all the time one portion of the people, clothc
|, with state power might disregard tho right
, of tho remainder simply through n total n
! fusal by those in Office to take any notice
- the crimes of those of thcir political inclinin
when directed against the persons and prol
crty of their hated political opponents.
In considering the decision just rcndcrc
by the supreme court there is an cxhbitio
of glcc on the part of some democratic cdito
: which indicates that they understand Il
y, court as holding that state can only viola
the fourteenth amendment by lcgislatic
in conflict with it. Those who have take
this hasty view will do well to cons idor car
D fully the italicized words in the ex tract fro
$, the opinion of the court above quoted, The
s. will observe that among other condition
lc under which "the amendment imposes
Of duty and confers no power upon congress
II when "thc laws of the state % % %
administered By its ercCMire department reco
nizc and protect the rights Of all persons
II
"a whenever the laws of the state as administer
lc Jy its erecutirc department do =
n, so recognize and protect the rights
II all persons, then the aulcdmcnt docs impo
Is the duty and confer the power upon congrC
ID to right the wrong The fourteenth amen
le ment is the crowning glory of the nation, a,
is worth all ii cost, for it places beyond t
caprice of n state the rights of an Americ
v citizen. The court of last resort decides IL,
H. it is operative on states only, but GpprOpri
c. legislation will make it reach every citiz
ID whom the state in any manner oppresses
Id fails to protect whcn oppressed by the lawl,
re forces, to restrain which is the first object
IS government.
pl | ----------9-------
Our Public Schools.
Education is one of the necessities Of mode
g. times Tho systems i'm vogue in the yariC