Sacramento daily record-union., 1883-10-20
a FEW PLAIN WORDS TO THE COL
oRED CITIZEN.

1t is evident from the hot-tempered man.
.festations of the colored people through
out the country that there is vast deal Of
z1isapprehension concerning the civil rights
Dill decision. 1t should be understood that
it has in no respect changed the situation,
before the law, of the colored man. Ii
anything it has absolutely improved his
condition, since it is renewed recognition
of his equality under the Fourteenth
Amendment, before the law. 1t says to
MIN this legislation by Congress was sur
Olussge. Il was about a matter which be-
longs to the police regulation system of
State. The decision in reality speaks after
this fashion to the colored citizen
You are invested with all rights un-
der the Constitution. If any rights of
whites or blacks are invaded, they must 60
into the State Courts and pursue their
remedy for damages. No State shall, or
can, pass law to deprive you of any right.
If State attempts to do so, the Federal
Courts viii intervene and set aside all such
enactmen5s. Understand, colored citizen,
that instead. of seeking redress in the Fed
eral Courts for infringement of your rights,
that being the equal of any other citizen,
having the same status as any other citizen
before the law, you have the same reme-
dies and must pursue the same course for
their enforcement as does the white man.
If it is not clear to you yet why the civil
rights bill as to the States is unconstitu-
tional, then consider that the Fourteenth
Amendment declares that Congress shall
pass the necessary Acts to carry it into
1865. In 1873 Congress passed the Act
relative to your possible or actual ex-
olusion from hotels, thesters, etc,
and declared that all such things
lhould be offenses before the law,
punishable by fine or Imprisonment,
or both. Unquestionably this was done
because you had been most unjustly
treated In several States in this regard
even numerically and cruelty so. Now
was that Act in obedience to the mandate
TO Congress to pass laws to carry into eff.
fsct the amendment? The Supreme Court,
constituting the law by the rules of con-
5truction which for ages had prevailed,
and having in view that fundamental prin-
ciple and mandate which prohibits Con.
gress from legislating on matters reserved
10 the States as sovereignties, says that
Act was not in obedience to that mandate,
for the amendment provides that no State
shall psss or enforce any law to deprive
you of any right. If State does not
pass any such law. the common law, the
.tatutes of the States relative to the pres
srvation of human life, liberty and prop
erty. are as much for you as for the white
nan. You have the same right to sue'aud
to be sued, to follow mp wrong doers, and
70 enforce your rights as an equal with
the white man. he has no greater right
than you, and you no superior right to his.
What Congress might have done would
nave been to pass an Act saying: "It
shall be unlawful for any State to pass any
law, or to attempt to enforce any law, dis.
eliminating against the natural right of any
nan because of color. But that would
rave been simply repeating the words and
asriment Ct the amendment, It could