Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1922-07-01
HON. MOOREFIELD S7OREY'S GREAT BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF DYER AN7I-LYNCH|he BILL
1AINENT EAR AUTHORITY AND
POINTS THU WAY CONSTITUTIONAL
bull IN HARMONY WITH THR CONSTITUTION.

would become citisens. Its language
Is clear and should be givon full
effect.
II on the othor hand the purpose
Of those who framed and adopted
:the amendment ia to prevent, car
any one doubt that the Dyer bill
carries out the purpose OF the -Four.
teenth Amendment
But 1t is said that Congress is not
given power to enforce tho funda.
mental r1ghts OF our citizens. 1t is
well settled that an express grant
OF power 10 not needed.
Mr.. Justice Bradley. In First
Woods Circuit Court Reports, p. S14
In. dealing with the CruikBhank case
said: b
1T is undoubtedly q eound pro-
position that Whenever right Ia
guaranteed by tho Constitution OF
tho United States Congress has the
power to provide for it's enforcement
either by implication arising from
tho correlative duty OF Government
to protect wherever q right to the
citizen ia conferred or undor the
general powor CONTAINED In Art. I,
800. s, par. 18), to make all laws
necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers,
and all other powers vested by this
Constitution in tho Government OF
the United States or any department
or officer thereof"
In Straudor v. West Virginia, 100
U. 8. $40. 311, the language Is:
IA right Or an immunity, whether
created by the Constitution or only
guaranteed by it, even without any
express delegation OF power. may be
protected by Congress
So in United States v. Reese, 90
U. 8. S14, 1t was said by tho Chief
Justice: ..-
"Rights and immunities created
by or dependent upon the Constltu-
ton Of tho United States can be
protected by Congress. Tho form
and manneC Of the protection may
be euch as Congress In tho legitimate
exercise OF its Legislative discretion
shall provide. These may be varied
to meet the necessities Of the mar
ticular right to be protected"
The citizen OF the United States
Ia entitled to protection from the
government to which he owes allie
glance. Tho two arc inseparable.
The essential rights OF the citizen,
assured by the constitution must be
supported by the government which
tho constitution created to do the
nations work, and to enforce and
insure tho rights Of It's citizens.
TIIE CASES RELIED ON BY THE
:. OPPONENTS. OF THD BILL.
Let us now consider the language
OF the Supreme Court In the cases
which arc relied upon to defeat this
enactment. They are gathered in tho
case of James v. Bowman, 400 U.
s. p. 1876 ct seq. Elk parte Virginia
has been discussed already.
In United States v. Cruikshank,
80 U. s. SAP. at p. 654 tho Court
says:
1.-The equality OF the rights OF CIT
liens 1s principle Of republicanism.
Every republican government is In
duty bound to protect all its citizens
In the enjoyment OF this principle.
II within It's power. That duty was
originally assumed by the States:
and 1t still remains there. The only
obligation resting upon the United
States Ia to see that the States do
not deny the right. This the
amendment guarantees, but no more,
Tho power Of tho national govern
ment is limited to the enforcement
OF this guarantee"
This recognizes the right Of Con.
greea to act when the States deny
Che right"
In the Civil Rights Cases. 100 U.
8. 3, at p. Is:
Until some State law has been
passed, or some State action through
It's df1cers or agents has been taken,
adverse to the rights Of citizens
sought to be protected by tho Four
teenth Amendment, no legislation Of
the United States under said amend
ment, nor any proceeding under such
legislation can be- called into activ-
tty; for the prohibitions of the
amendment are against State laws
and acts done under State authority.
OF course, legislation may, and
should BIO, provided in advance to
meet the extgency when it arises but
1t should be adapted to the mischief
and wrong which the amendment was
intended to provide against: and
that Is, State laws, or State action