Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1922-07-01

may adopt is only such as NAV be
proper "for counteracting such laws
as the States may adopt or enforce. "
"Tho denial OF the rights given by
the Fourteenth Amendment need not
be by legislation. Mr.. Justice
Holmes in Saunders v. Shaw, supra
United States v. Harris, LOG u.
8. 62S-63o.
when tho state han been guilty
Of no violation OF it's provisions:
when 1t has not made or enforced
any law abridglng the privileges or
immunitiea OF citizens Of the United
States; when no one Of its depart
ments has deprived any person OF
life, liberty or property without due
process Of law, or denied to any
person within its Jurisdiction. the
equal protection Of the laws; whom,
on tho contrary. tho laws OF the
State, aB enacted by it's lesisla tive,
and construed by it's judicial, and
administered BY ite executive de-
partments. recognize and protect the
rights of all persons. tho amendment
imposes no duty and confers no pow
er upon Congress" r..
But whore these conditions do not
oxist. Congress- must act.
Elk parte Virginia recognizes tho
ofacers or agents by whom the pow
ore OF tho State arc exercised as tho
State. and provides that they shall
not deny to any person within its
Jurisdiction the equal orotootion of
tho laws.
United States v. Creek gllAnk holds
that the obligation ~SGh rests on
the United States e to SEQ that tho
States do not dony the right OF tho
citizens to the enjoyment Of funda-
mental rights, that tho equality Of
tho rights OF cttiHens is principle
Of republication. that every part OF
tho government Is bound to protect
it's citizens in these rights. and that
the power OF tho national govern
ment extends to tho enforcement Of
this guarantee.
In the Civil Rights cases. tho
court recognizes the fact that leg
islation may and, should be provided
In advance to. moet the eXlgency
whom 1t arises. hut 1t should be adapt
cd to tho mischief or wrong which
1t was intended to provide against,
that is, State laws or State action
Of some kind adverse to the rights
of tho citizons secured by the
amendment.
United States V. Harris holds that
the Congress cannot act when no
ono Of the departments Of the State
has denied to any person within It's
Jurisdiction tho equal protection OF
tho laws, but whore such denial has
taken place it can act.
All these cases recdgni8e that
conditions may arise which will rem
dor action by Congress necessary to
enforce tho guarantee Of the -Four.
teenth Amendment.
To hold otherwise Is to strike out
entirely the grant Of power IN tho
amendment itself.
We have in hundreds Of cases the
executive officers of the State, tho
persons who ARE in possession Of
suspected persons and charged with
tho duty Of securing for them due
process Of law, surrendering to tho
mob these persons, making no ef-
fort to hold the jail against attack,
or to defend tho prisoners from
being taken out Of their custody al.
though 1t must he perfectly appar-
ont to them that the purpose OF the
mob Is to lynch the prisoner without
due process Of law.
These Officers are tho agents Of the
State by which Its power is exer-
cised, and by their acts toward these
accused persons and the mob they
deny their prisoners the equal pro-
lection Of the law. and when their
action Is ratified by their higher
officers and by all the people Of the
State, It Is clear that tho State has
deniel to these citizens the equal
protection Of the laws.
Unless Congress has power to deal
with this situation, IL 1t cannot rem
edy tho abuses which have gone I'M
checked for q generation and more,
the manifest intent of the Fourteenth
Amendment is defeated entirely and
by refusing to pass this law either as
1t stands or amended. II amendment
is needed, Congress says to the COL
ored people Of this country, 1--WE
are powerless to aid you and you
can hold out no hope that We can
ever help you. Alone OF all the
citizens of the United States you
may be deprived Of life, liberty or
property whenever mob OF white
men chooses to murder or rob you. I"
Should tho Constitution Of tho United
States be 30 interpreted 90 to justify
this conclusionf
The Supreme Court has never sus-
tanned such an Interpretation and, in
my Judgment never will.
1t would seem clear In any event
that Congress should not refuse to
do It's daty because Of the fear that
the Supreme Court might not agree
with 1t as to the necessity and le-
gality Of the act which the House
OF Representatives has passed. Tho
distinction between the cases which
have hitherto been presented to the
court and this case ia very clear, and
IT Congress ~rs tho Supreme Court
will have the power to correct tho
error, but If Congress refuses to act,
1t is responsible for the continuance
OF the infamous practice which the
bill fs framed to stop. .,. :...,
MOORFIELD STOREY. (.