The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-10-23
II Nashville.

spirit, and never saw rebels run faster than they
did before them. Laughter and applause.l L
recollect story connected with that charge that
always impressed me as exceedingly funny. One
of the foremost of this colored skirmsh line
came up with rebel, and, bringing his gun to
bear on him, demanded he should surrender.
The Johnny was inclined to parley. Laugh
teri He said: "Now, if 1 surrender to a
Niger my father will kill me when go home"
Laughter and applause. And said: "If you
VIII just go back TO camp and get q white sol
dlef and bring him out here will surrender to
him." Laughter Well, the eOlored men were
always polite, and he was polite Jnen. He said:
II would like to accommodate you, sir, but am
IN hurry" Laughter and appiause.j And as
he afterwards told the story to the General,
Wnen he came In he said: 81 told him he would
nave to come along" and said, "Dar he is, Gin
eral, fetched him." Laughter and applause
Now, my fellow-citlzens, we are here tonight
Tor serious purpose, take it. l have only al
luded briefly TO the events which have brought
You from a condition of serfdom to the freedom
which You now enjoy If had time would
like to fill up the picture, and bring to your
mind some of the men who helped to make this
possible, both in battle and in Congress, and
would also like to call your attention to some OF
the distractions we have overcome, and to some
OF those men who have pulled back all the time;
who have been constantly saying every time
any law granting new right to the colored
men was proposed, ut is uneonsttu-
tional." Laughter.I But this is not the
time to indulge in such "reminiscences.
Every one of you have thought of these things
and they present with you now. But
there has been an alarm and some of you
have been achieved were about to be swept
away from you; that you are about to lose your
status as citizens, your rights as electors, ana
your privileges in connection with the public
schools. This decision which has recently been
delivered by the Suprsine Court has reference TO
just about three things: First, whether you
shall have right to sit in the front seat at the
tbeater; second, how shall you be treated by
railroad trains, and third, what rights you
shall have in hotels. IL has nothing to
do with your right to vote, with your right TO go
to the public schools, with your right to sit on
jury. 1t doesn't relate to any of those things. 1t
relates to that part of the law which provides
that you shall have equal privileges with other
people in going to the theater, in riding on the
cars, and in going to hotels. The civil-rights
bill was passed in March, 1875, by the ReDub-
lican party. do not rec0llect that any Demo
crat voted for 1t in the House or Senate. A few
Carpenter, of Wisconsin. That bill was sup
posed to be justified by the fourteenth
amendment to the constitution. 1 suppose
there is not man here tonight that does not
know that the Congress of the United States
only pass such law as it is authorized to pass
by the constitution. There may De a good
many laws we would like to have passed, as,
for instance, a law regulating divorces, or other
questions of that kind; out Congress has no ju.
risdictton, and cannot pass laws because
there Is no power given in the constitution au-
thorizing it to do so. For some of the prOtec-
ton which the law gives us we must look to the
State laws, and for some of it to the laws of the
United States.
happened TO be in the court room of the su-
preme Court when this decision was read by
Justice Bradley. The point of the decision was
this That the fourteenth amendment to the con-
suitution prohibited any State, North or South,
from passing any law denying to the colored men
of those States the equal privileges OF the law.
No State was allowed to do it, and if any State
did it, then Congress, had right, to
pass law to annul the State law.
No State had passed any law on the subject at
all. The denial OF a privilege to enter Georgia
tlseater, I believe it was, was not because the
State had passed any law saving that cOlored
men should not enter a theater, or that any
State had passed any law saying that they should
MI flnnc axrvitt okl
it was simply the act of the ticket-seler and the
conductor, with no State law to justify it, and
no pretense of any. The Supreme Court simply
said that Congress had power to legisi ate
the subject to who should ride on rail-
road trains, or steamboats,, or stop at hotels,
unless some State passed a law first which
impairs the rights of the colored men,
Then Congress can strike down that
law. [Cheers- Now, am trying to explain TO
you, as a lawyer, the point OF the decision. We
mad in the old constitution provision like this:
No State shall pass any law impairing the obi
CATION Of contracts. The Supreme Court says
tina don't give Congress supervision over the
whole subject OF contracts. Ii you have a dis
pu5e with man about contract, Congress has
right to take it into the federal court to settle
1t, but if a State passes law which is intended
to let you out of your contract or allow you to
violate it. and you defend under that law, then
the provision of the constitution comes in and
says, eve will kill that law, we will strike it
down." [Cheers.] The Supreme Court says the
fourteenth amendment simply gave Congress
power to strike down any discrimination or un-
just law which might be passed by any of the
States against the colOred man; and that when
ever State passes such "a law, it is stricken
down under the fourteenth amendment and the
civil-rights act. want to say further, that the
whole of this act was not declared unconsttu-
tional. The Supreme Court says: cover the
Territories of the United States and in the Dis
trict of Columbia, Congress has absolute power
to legisate." There is no State constitution or
autonomy in the way at all, SO that the law is in
full force to-day in the District of Columbia and
in every Territory, and no State in this union
can pass any law that abridges your rights as O
But there was another section of this civil
rights bill of 1875. 1t was this: That colored
people should not be discrim mated against as
jurors Why that Simply because we
were afraid the Southern States would do as
they did undertake to do at the close of the war,
namely, pass unfriendly legislation against the
blacks, such as the apprentice laws and divers
forms of legislation, which, under the color of
law, practically put the cOlored man in the
power of his master again And the provision
as to jurors was put in, therefore, because when
colored men were tried for crimes before the
courts of the South, it was unfair that their own
race should be excluded from the jury-box ana
not be allowed to sit as jurors on trial OF their
countrymen. That provision stands to-day.
[Cheers.l The Supreme Court says that as the
qualifications of jurors are prescribed by the
laws of the States the fourth section of the civil
rights bill is constitution al-thaE is they cannot
be excluded from the jury-box. There was
case from Virginia where the sheriff sued
for excluding a colored man from the jury-box
because he was a colored man. and the Supreme
Court of the United States decided, and reaf-
frmed that decision in these cases, that in such
a case the civil-rights bill does take hold and
that it is constitutional TO punish a who
discriminates against colored men as jurors
Now, that is the effect of the opinion. And
want to say to you frankly, while l have
and while have not bad time to give it that
consideration that a lawyer ought to have before
forming an opinion, that as heard it read by
Justice Bradley it struck me, judging as a law
yer, there was very strong reason for the dis
elimination he made as to the scope and effect
of the fourtee It'll amendment. And am sure
You would rather should tell you so frankly
than not to express my opinion. A voice:
"That's so.''
Now, what is the effect on your rights. Why,
in the first place the law has ceased to be needed
at all in a large part of the country. 1 suppose
as to theaters-and Major Gordon will correct
me If 1 am wrong-that man who owns
theater can let in whom he pleases, and
can keep out whoever he pleases. If were to
start theater bers, and publish an order that
no man should be admitted to that theater who