National Republican., 1883-10-23
some contompornneous History.

joint committee of fifteen on reconstruction,
of which William Pitt Fessondcn was chair
man for the senate and Thaddeus Stevens for
the house. During tho debate in tho house
on tho eighth of May Gen. Garfield main
tained that IL would DO grant Of power to
congress to lcgislate directly for the protec-
tion of civil rights Abiding to tho Trum-
bull civil rights law, which was itself an
assertion of congressional power over the
subject, and which conferred exclusive juris-
diction on the federal courts in all cases
arising under il, he said
The civil rights bill is now part of the law of
the land. But every gentleman knows it will
ceuse to be part of the law whenever the sad mo-
ment arrives when that gentleman's party comes
into power. 1t is precisely for that reason that we
propose to M hnt great aud good idD above the
reach of political stlifc, beyond the reach of the
plots and Vaccinations Of any party, and fix It in
the serene sky, in the eternal armament of con-
sHition, where no storm of passion can shake 1t
aud no cloud can obscure 1t.
This was said in reply to the declaration
of Mr.. Fincl1, democratic member that If
the amendment was necessary in order to
confer upon congress power over the matters
contained in it, then the civil rights bill
which the president vetoed, was passed with
out authority and is clearly unconstitu-
tional." Here is clear evidence that on both
sides of the house it was considered that the
amendment, if adopted, would give congress
the power to protect civil rights without
waiting for states in which they were no.
toriously denied to putltho denial into legisla-
tive form.
Henry J. Raymond, who was the cham pion
of President johnson rather than of cthor
party, took the same ground Abiding to
the civil rights bill, he sad
did not vote for the bill when 1t was first
passed, and when 1t came back to us from the
president with his objections voted against it,
And now although that bill became law and is
now upon our statute book, 1t is again proposed
so 10 amend the cOlI!uion as 10 confer upon congress
hepowcr 10 passh.
That is to say, that under the fourteenth
amendment congress would be given the
power which the supreme court has just
decided that it did not give No member of
the house took issue with Mr. Raymond on
the subject, although Mr.. Wilson, of Iowa,
called attention to his declaration, and thus
restated it:
l understood him 10 say that he voted against
that bill because as he believed congress had not
the power, under the constitution to pass the bill,
and that II would require such an amendment as is
now proposed 10 clothe as ,CuM The power TO pass
such measure.
Mr.. Eldridge, of Wisconsin, democratic
leader and an eminent lawyer, took the
ground that the civil rights act was uncon-
stitutional, but that the fifteenth amendment
would give congress the power to pass such
an act.
Mr.. Raymond again, during the same de-
bate, defended his vote against the civil
rights bill on the ground that it then lacked
constitutional authority. He said:
But now it comes before us in the form of an
amendment TO The constitution Whch proposes 10 Sirc
congress M6 poivcr 10 attain this precise result. |
shall vote for that amendment because think con-
9reSS Should hare that po,cer.
Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, cited the case of
Prigg VS.. The State of Pennsylvania, from
which we quoted yesterday, to show that con-
gress had power to enforce any and all rights
possessed under the constitution, and that
therefore the civil rights act was valid with
out the support of the new amendment.
Mr.. Bingham, of Ohio, said:
There was want hitherto and there remains q
/ 80
he proposed amendment 'uW supply. What is that
1t is the power in the people, the whole people OF
the United states, by express authority of the con
stitution TO do that by congressional enactment
which hitherto they have not had the power 10
| do, ana have never even attempted TO do; that is
to protect by national ldO the priCilgeS and inmunt
ties Of all the citizens Of the republic, and tho Unborn
rights of every person within its jurisdiction
whenever the same shall be abridged or denied
| by the unconstitutional acts of any state.
This last expression is tho only one to be
found in the house debate which even tends
to tho idea that under the amendment con-
gross could only legislato to correct state
action. But state action need not be in the
form of legislation. If the state looks on and
sees the privileges of class of citizens ha
DllUully ueSdllcuj lIS Iclusil W lhIGIlcrc Wnell
appealed to is an unconstitutional and q hos
| tile act.
In the senate, Mr.. Fessenden being in i'll
health, Mr.. Howard, OF Michigan, had charge
of the amendment on behalf of the commit,
mittee. Ho said
can only promise to present to the senate. in q
very succinct way, the Uicrs and the motives which
influenced that committee, SO far us l understand
those views and motives, in presenting the repor
which is now before us for consideration, and III.
ends 1t aims to accomplish. The fist sec
| ton of the amendment they have submitted fol
the consideration of the two houses relates to the
| privileges and immunites Of citizens of the sew.
eral states and to the rights and privileges of al
| persons, whether citizens or others, under the
laws of the United States. Now, sir
there Is no power given in the constitution to en-
force and TO carry out any of these guarantees
They are not powers granted by the constitution
| to congress- but they stand simply as
bill of rights in the constitution. without power
on the part of congress to give them full
effect, while at the same time the states
are not restrained from violating the principle
embraced in them except by their own local con
stitutions which may be altered from year to year
The great object Of the first section Of this amend
ment is, therefore, TO restrain the power of the
states aud compel them at all times to respect
these great fundamental guarantees, How will Il
bo done under the present amendment? As have
al. .