National Republican., 1883-11-05

dividual against another is not the subject
matter of the amendment.
This Is not the first time the court has put
this construction upon the fourteenth amend
mont In the case of Crickshank OF nj. vs..
the United States, 81, (U. 5. Rep, p. 5l3),
Chief Justice Waite, speaking for the court,
commenting upon the character Of the four
teenth amendment, among other things in
substance said "rhis amendment adds moth
ing to the rights of one citizen against an.
other. 1t simply furnishes an additional
guarantee against encrOaChments by the
states upon the fundamental rights which
belongs to every citizen or member of society.
The only obligation resting upon the United
States is, to see that the states do not deny
the rights which the amendment guarantees
and no more. The power of the government
is limited to the enforcement of this guar
antee."
This decision, made seven or eight years
ago, so far as IL relates to the fourteenth
amendment, contains essentially the same
principle laid down in the recent cases that is
now exciting so much attention. What were
those cases? They were suits based upon the
first and second sections Of the civil rights
act by one private party against another. The
acts complained of were not done under the
authority of any state law, nor was any such
law relied on by the defendants If tho
plaintiffs had q right to the use of the theater,
lated, IL was a simple trespass, for which the
laws of the state would give a redress but for
which the constitution of the United States
has provided none and for this defect in the
constitution the court is not responsible, and
there exists no power in congress, as before
stated to make laws which are,not authorized
by the constitution and ifcongress enacts such
laws, the judges of the supreme court would
violate their solemn oaths if they enforced
them. Now the i'll feeling against the court
because of this decision is extremely unjust
since IL did not make the constitution
nor act of congress in question, and
it is still more unjust when it is remem-
bered that this same court has enforced
the rights of the colored men to vote, his
right to sit on juries, to become u witness,
his right TO personal freedom to mako con-
tracts and TO enforce them, all which will
appear by reading tho following decisions
Strouder vs. West Virginia. 100 u S. r., 303;
Virginia VS.. Reeves 100 U. :. r., 3O3 OK
parte Virginia, 100 U. S. r., $780, United
States vs. Cruickshank, 02 U. 5. r., 543 Bush
VS.. commonwealth of kentucky, not reported;
Neal VS.. state of Delaware, 103 U. $. r. 80.
In this last case the court reversed the
Judgment of death against negro (Neal) in
the supreme court Of Delaware, because negroes
were excluded from the jury, and upon q new
trial he was acquitted. Now, with all these
evidences of the courts friendship and regard
for the rights of the negro, is it not simply
and wickGdly absurd to suppose that the court
is the special enemy of the negro race and
must be denounced as such, because it was
unwilling to violate its oath in upholding an
unconstitutional law. What have they lost
by this decision? My reply is nothing.
They have all the rights and privileges
of white citizens, and are equally entitled
to tho same protection. If a railway com
pany, the conductor of a theater, or an inn
keeper should deny them the privileges and
accommodations usually accorded to other
| citizens they can sue aud have their redress
as well without as with the aid Of the civil
rights act One eminent colored speaker was
pleased to say his race by this decision had
! been set back one decade in their rights and
progress towards civilization. This is great
delusion, for as a matter of fact they have
lost nothing. But there may be danger of
their being set back that long by their ground
less and injudicious complaints against an
honorable court, for by so doing they will
| lose the sympathy and kindly feelings of
many good men who heretofore have been
| their best friends. Another eloquent gentle-
man inconsiderately remarked that we must
have new court or new law. In connec-
| tion with this remark | want to say that II
ever the day shall arrive in which the best
| talent and the best virtues shall be driven
| from the bench by the ostracism of the press
| or the outbreaks of popular camor this CO.
ordinate branch of constitutional govern
| ment is gone, its shadow may remain, but 1
tell you its glory, its prestige, its vital power
will have departed forever.
Our venerated constitution is in the highest
sense the palladium of American liberty, and
it will not do TO fritter and subvert its noble
provisions by loose and Naturalization con-
struCton of tho same to suit the caprice and
passions of particular class
! | believe the reports Of the supreme court
for the last eighteen or twenty years will
/ show n larUnr number of able and learned
| cxpositOns and defenses of the constitution
than all the previous years Of its history.
| say then, in conclusion, Mr.. Editor, all
hail to q court that dares inhex bly, to stand
by the constitution, upholding its principles
in their prmeval integrity; and by so doing
it has maintained the principles of union,
liberty, justice domestic tranquility, and the
| general welfare. JUSTICE.
Nov. 3, 1883.