Year: 1874

what possible grounds of principle or


policy, of humanity or patriotism, is it


urged that the laws of the United States


shall authorize prejudice of race, or de-


liberately secure civic inequality among


citizens? The Civil Rights Bill is de-


nounced as visionary, theoretical, i'm
practicable legislation. But this obiec-
ton, even if it were valid, comes too late


The folly, if it exists, was in granting the


citizenship, not, certainly, in defending


it when it is granted. The logical posi-


ton, and the only tenable one, of those


who oppose the bill is to demand the re-


peal of the original grant.


The objection, as stated, is that it is


useless to legislate against "a prejudice.


That is not the point. The question is


whether it is useless to assert and main


tain the equality of American citizens


before the law. The present consequence


es of enforcing that equality may be un-


fortunate to the schools in some parts


of the country. But that is only a theory,
and if it prove to be fact, the evil is in
it's nature temporary. But deliberately


to establish injustice in the law is degra-
dation which is permanently fatal to the
national character. 1t is said that the
prejudice must be left to time and various
influences. But in the mean while what
will you do about legal injustice? Is that
also prejudice? Is that to be left to
time? Moreover, if you recognize the
prejudice at one point. why not at. anoth-
er? If the legal rights of citizen in a
hotel or in the cars are to be abandoned
at the demand of prejudice, why not
abandon his legal rights at the polls if
prejudice requires And we ask those
who think that prejudice is to be con-
quered by allowing it to dictate the laws,
how soon and in what manner they ex-
pect it to disappear The sure way to
foster it is to recognize it in the law, as
the sure to begin its extinction is to out
law it. When. the war began. and col
ored troops were proposed, there were
wiseacres who said that if the whites
could not do the necessary fighting, the
government might as well be destroyed.
Suppose that the prejudice had then
been recognized by refusing colored
soldiers, would it have been weaker or
stronger to-day? There are those who
say and will continue to Say, that they
have natural prejudice against colored
persons. But can any good purpose be
served by strengthening that prejudice
by law?


. Mr.. Smith argues that to pass the bill
would be a party blunder, because, it
would help the Democrats into power.
But since the Republicans passed the
amendments, and since the bill is merely
carrying the amendments into eff
feet, they cannot reject it without
fatal confession'that they do not really
trust their own principles and policy,
a confession which would of course
defeat them. If the Republican party
has any duty palmer and more pressing
than that of establishing the equality of
American citizens before the law, we do 4
not know what it is. 1t is true that had
the question not>been raised its decision
might wait upon the general ground that
the necessity of legislation or of declara-
ton had not arisen. But it has been
raised. Some kind of action is impera-
tive; and'that action which maintains
the constitutional and conceded rights of
the citizen will withdraw the negro, as
such from politics, and will leave preju-
dice only its own folly to feed upon.