The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-04-26

ment the court said with great force that:
 Tt would be the vainest show of learn ing to attempt to prove by citations of authority. that up to the adoption of the recent amendments. no claim or pretense was set up that the rights belonging to the individual as citizen of State. de- pended on the Federal government for their existence or protection. beyond the very few express limitations which the Federal Constitution imposed upon the States such, for instance. as the prohi- bition against the ex post facto laws. bills of attainder. and laws irnpairing the ob- ligation of contracts. But with the e&- ception of these and few other restric- tions. the entire domain of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the States, as above defined,-lay within the constitu- tonai and legislative power of the States, and without that of the Federal govern | ment.
 Was 1t the purpose of the fourteenth amendment, by the simple declaration | that no State should make or enforce any law which should abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. to transfer the security and pro- tection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned. from the States to the | Federal government? And where 1t Is declared that Congress shall have power to enforce that article, was it intended to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights. heretofore belonging exclusively to the States? All this and more must follow. if the | proposition of the plaintiffs in error be | sound. For not only are the rights sub- | ject to the control of Congress whenever in it's discretion any of them are supposed to be abridged by the State Legislation, but that body may also pass laws in ad- vance. limiting and restricting the ex- ercise of legislative power by the States, in their most ordinary and usual func- tons. as in it's judgment 1t may think proper on all such subjects.
 And still further. such a construction 1 followed by the reversal of the judg- ments of the Supreme Court of Louisiana l in these cases, would constitute this | court a perpetual censor upon all legis- | lation of the States, on the civil rights Of | their own citizens, with authority to null | lify such as 1t did not approve as consts- tent with those rights. as they existed at | the time of the adoption of this amend ment. The argument We admit is not all | ways the most conclusive which is drawn from the consequences urged against the adoption of a particular construction of an instrument. But when. as In the case before us. these consequences are so se- rious, so far reaching and pervading, so l g1 eat a departure from the structure and spirie of our institutions; when the effect is to letter and degrade the State gov ernments by subjecting them to the con- trof of Congress. in the exercise of pow CTS heretofore universally conceded to them of the most ordinary and funda- mental character: when in fact 1t radi- cally changes the whole theory of the re- | iaf Rf tba Gtofa nd n- ments to each other. and of both these governments to the people; the argument has a force that is irresistible. in the ab- sence of language which expresses such a purpose too clearly to admit of doubt.
 We are convinced no such results were intended by Congress, which proposed these amendments. nor by the Legisla- lures of the States which ratified them.
 The Right to Vote.
 Coming to the Fifteenth Article of Amendment which ordains that 'the right ot citizens Df the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on ac- count of race, color. or previous condition of servit'.5e," the Supreme Court in the Crulkshank case, speaking through Chief Justice Waite. said:
 "The Gov 1T iment of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the con stitution. All powers not granted to It by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the Constitution pr laws ot the United States, except such IS the Gov ernment of the United States has the au' thority to grant or secure. All that can not be so granted or secured are lef1 under the protection of the States. The , | right of the people pea ;aably to aSSem ble for lawful purposes existed long be- , fore the adoption of the Constitution oi the United States. In fact, 1t s, and al ways has been, one of the attributes o citizenship under free government II derives it's source" to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall. in Gibbon Vs ogden, from those laws whose antiquity is acknowledged by civilized man through out the world. It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not. therefore a right granted to the people by the Con stitution. The Government of the United States when established found 1t in ex fstence. with Ihe obligation on the part of the States to afford 1t protection. Two of the counts in this case stated the intent of the defendants to have been tc hinder and prevent the citizens named being of African descent and colored. ir the free exercise and enjoyment of theil
 
 ilege to vote at any election to bC thereafter by law had and held by tht people in and of the State of Louisiana or by the people in and of the Parish O! Grant in that State The Court say tha in Minor vs. Hupperett we decided tha the Constitution of the United States ha! not conferred the right of suffrage upoT any one, and that the United States have no voters of their own creation in tho States; that in the case of Reese and oth CTS they held that the Fifteenth Amend ment has invested the citizens of tho United States with new constitutions right. which is exemption from discrim ination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race. color ol previous condition of servitude. From this 1t appears that the right of sui frage is not a necessary attribute of nat ural citizenship; but that exemption from discrimination in the exercise of tha right on account of race. etc., Is. The right to vote in the States comes from the States, but the right of exemption from the prohibited discrimination comes from the United States. The first has not beer granted or secured by the Constitution oi the United States, but he last has been
 The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits States from denying to any person with in it's jurisdicti) )n the equal protection oi the laws; but this provision does not add anything to the rights which one citizen has under the Constitution against an other. The equality of the rights of cit izens is a principle of republicanism Every Republican Government is in duty