CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



193 



more frequently, or better comprehend, or 

 cherish more tenderly, or hold more sacred. It 

 needed no reenactment in or out of the Consti- 

 tution. It is common and conceded constitu- 

 tional law. 



"Mr. Speaker, I come now, perhaps, to the 

 most important part of this section, and I re- 

 fer to the words : 



Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, lib- 

 erty, or property, without due process of law. 



" That language is not new in the constitu- 

 tional history of our country. It is common 

 to all the States. It is one of the most familiar 

 of all the covenants between the people and 

 the Government, whether State or Federal. 

 Precisely the same form of words is found in 

 the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the 

 United States : 



No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or 

 property, without duo process of law. 



" With this difference only : this section de- 

 clares that no State shall deprive any person 

 of life, liberty, or property, without due pro- 

 cess of law, while in the fifth amendment it 

 declares generally that no person shall be so 

 deprived. But the Supreme Court of the United 

 States, in several cases, has held that this 

 amendment, and indeed the first eleven amend- 

 ments, are intended to impose limitations and 

 restrictions on the Federal power and to pre- 

 vent interference with the rights of the States 

 and of their citizens. (5 How., 410 ; 7 Peters, 

 469; 6 How., 507; 18 How., 71; ibid., 591; 

 2 How., 84; 7 Wall., 321.) It was for this 

 reason that this inhibition is here made to ap- 

 ply to the States, and out of abundant caution 

 only. 



" But what is the meaning of the language 

 in the old Constitution that none of these 

 things shall be done 'without due process of 

 law ? ' Those words have been repeatedly con- 

 strued by the different courts of the United 

 States by the Supreme Court of the United 

 States and by the highest courts in the States 

 and in every instance they have been held 

 to mean that no person shall be deprived of 

 life, liberty, or property, except in the regular 

 course of administration through courts of jus- 

 tice, or of legal proceedings under the laws of 

 the land, which laws must be constitutional. 

 If the prosecution is in the Federal courts, then 

 this language entitles the citizen to such trial 

 as shall accord with the existing law of the 

 land, in the usual and regular course of admin- 

 istration, and that law itself shall be constitu- 

 tional. When these words are used in a State 

 constitution, they have the same application 

 and construction. So that when any man is 

 tried for crime in any of the States he shall 

 not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 

 except in pursuance of trial under the forms 

 and requirements of the laws of the States, 

 which laws shall possess the essential requisite 

 of constitutionality under the Constitution of 

 the United States and of the particular State 

 in which they are enacted. 



VOL. xi. 13 A 



" Such is the interpretation of this provision. 

 Now, what State of the North or South, or 

 what court of justice in any such State, has 

 ever in one instance undertaken to deny this 

 equal protection, which is involved in the idea 

 of a trial with due process of law ? Not one. 

 There is no pretext that any thing of that kind 

 has been attempted. These words give no 

 power to Congress or to the United States to 

 supersede State laws, or prescribe new codes 

 for States, or in any way to tamper or inter- 

 fere with the States in the administration of 

 their own systems to the utmost extent of 

 their local and reserved jurisdiction of that 

 great residuum of power which, under the ex- 

 press language of the Constitution of the United 

 States, ' is reserved to the States respectively, 

 or to the people.' 



" It might as well be insisted, upon the theo- 

 ry of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Shellabar- 

 ger), that it is competent for Congress to legis- 

 late in this way against the States of the Union 

 under section ten of article one of the Consti- 

 tion, which declares : 



No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or 

 confederation ; grant letters of marque and reprisal ; 

 coin money ; emit bills of credit ; make any thing 

 but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts ; 

 pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law im- 

 pairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title 

 of nobility. 



" And so of both the next succeeding clauses 

 of the section. In reference to the provisions 

 in the old Constitution, which are of precisely 

 equal force with this one in the fourteenth 

 amendment, it has never been assumed or be- 

 lieved by any person in this country that Con- 

 gress has power to go into the States of the 

 Union and subordinate State laws and State 

 jurisdiction to the control of Federal courts, 

 or officers, or of the President of the United 

 States. At the very basis of our institutions, 

 and vital to their safety and perpetuity, is the 

 right of local self-government in the States. 

 It is of supreme importance to the people. It 

 is not and was not intended to be impaired by 

 the fourteenth amendment. It is a priceless 

 and cherished inheritance to all the States of 

 this Union, and no power can rightly invade it. 

 It may be overthrown or denied, as this bill 

 proposes, but there is no warrant for it. It is 

 brute force only, and the like has too often 

 characterized the exercise of power in this- 

 country during the last six years. 



"States in several instances have emitted' 

 bills of credit, and the courts have held them 

 to be unauthorized and worthless. States have 

 attempted to make something other than gold 

 and silver coin a legal tender in payment of 

 debts, and the courts have denounced it as un- 

 warranted and ineffective. States have enact- 

 ed bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, and 

 laws impairing the obligations of contracts, and 

 the courts, State and Federal, have promptly 

 anathematized them all and effectually de- 

 stroyed their power for mischief, and protected 

 the people against their vicious principles and 



