Year: 1875

WINONA, MINI, June S.-Judge r,


r. Nelson, OF the United States district


court, now in session, to-day rendered


an opinion affirming the constitutional


ity Of the supplementary civil rights


law, which is believed to be the first ad-
Indication in this direction by q Federal


judge. AS Judge Nelson has been q


lifelong Democrat, his emphatic Opin-
ion produces no little astOnishment with
politicians as well as lawyers. The
opinion was given in response to re-
quest made by the grand jury before


whom a case was brought by the district
attorney under the civil rights bill. Al
ter reciting the provisions Of the last
three amendments to the constitution,
and after abiding to the celebrated
slaughterhouse decision of the supreme
court of the United States, Judge Nelson
says: ~ call your attention to this case
for the reason that several distinguished


Federal district judges and one
eminent circuit judge, in instruct
ing grand juries upon the presentation


of a similar question, have considered
that the Interpretation by tie United
States supreme court Of this first section
of the fourteenth amendment is a judg-
ment against the constitutionality OF the
law under consideration, and have there
fore given negative reply to the ques-
ton propounded. With great respect
for the opinions of these judges, l can
not assent to their conclusions; and
while l have no sympathy with this
kind of congressional legislation, and
believe that the State government should
punish all wrong or outrage of this char
acter committed within its limits, still
/ think where race, color, nativity and
religious or political belief furnishes the
only reason for the commission OF such


wrong or outrage, proper occasion
arises for the exercise of the power of
congress under this amendment. The
objection urged against such
law is that it seeks to punish,
in the Federal courts, a viola
ton Of certain privileges which
pertain to State citizenship. 1t is not
doubted that the punishment of ordi-
nary Offenses against persons of any
race belongs to State governments.
They were created for the purpose of
protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit
OF individual happiness, and should Leg
islate for this object; yet as the four
teenth amendments creates citizenship,
and guarantees the equality of all citi-
zens before the law, l think congress
can provide for the punishment Of inGi-
viduals who deprive any person o: the
enjoyment OF the rights of citizenship
and legal equality solely on account of
race or color. Those rights and privi-
leges are derived from the Federal gov
eminent, and are under its protection.
1t will be conceded, think, that State
legislation making it an Offense to re-
Fr1ua hn ootax-,.aor,f Of oI
dstions to white persons, and permit
ting the exclusion of all other persons,
would be repugnant to the amendment.
II SO, cannot congress inteTpose IN.
til some uniformly discriminating
State law is passed? Must it cOnfine its
action to the correction of obnoxious
legislation, and not to restrain individ-
uals? In the case Of Mccullough Us. the
State of Maryland, Wheaton, p. 400
437, the construction of the grant of
legislative power under the constitution
as it stood before the recent amend
ments, was fully discussed, and it was
decided that within grant of power to
congress for purposes Of legislation, it
may select any proper means of effect
ing the object in view, and may adopt
any which might be appropriate, and
which were conclusive to the end. APP
plying the reasoning OF the court to this
case, where the express power to enforce
the provisions of the amendment is
given in the fifth section, it
seems to me that congress can legislate
even though State had passed no OBJ
noxious law, and may also, in advance,
by such enactments as it may deem suit.
able and necessary, remedy the evil
against which this amendment proposes
to guard. II the opinion in that case
correctly represents the extent Of con-
gressional legislation, the power of con-
gress can be eXerted directly to put down
all outrage or discrimination on the part
of individuals, when the motive Origi-
mates only in race or color. 1 do not
deem 1t necessary at this time to more
fully discuss this question. The law, in
my opinion, is constitutional.