CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



195 



which renders an application from the Legislature or 

 executive authority of the State endangered necessary 

 to be made to the General Government, before its in- 

 terference can be at all proper. 



"There is nothing in the language of the 

 fourteenth amendment that is intended in any 

 way to repeal this fourth section of the fourth 

 article. When the States ratified that amend- 

 ment, they did not entertain the insane pur- 

 pose of transforming the Federal Government 

 into an agent of despotism. 



" Mr. Speaker, I must invite attention to one 

 more provision of the Constitution, after which, 

 I desire to refer to the bill itself. I refer to 

 the second clause of section nine of the first 

 article of the Constitution : 



The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not 

 be suspended, unless when, in case^of rebellion or in- 

 vasion, the public safety may require it. 



" Yet this bill proposes to authorize its sus- 

 pension at the pleasure of the President, it 

 may be, upon the most vague and partisan 

 reasons, libels, or gross exaggerations of truth, 

 and in cases of merely local and individual 

 violations of law, not approximating in char- 

 acter or enormity the legal idea of rebellion, 

 as used in this section and defined judicially. 

 It seems to me to be trifling with the common 

 intelligence, as well as with just legal princi- 

 ples, to pretend that the fourteenth amend- 

 ment confers power to enact such a law. 



" Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish briefly to invite 

 attention to some of the remarkable provisions 

 of the bill itself. It violates every principle to 

 which I have referred, as hitherto understood 

 in our country. 



" This entire bill claims for its object the en- 

 forcement of the first section of the fourteenth 

 amendment. But in that section the word 

 'rights' does not occur. Why insert it in 

 the bill ? Is it an attempt to extend the scope 

 and aim of that amendment ? If so, it is with- 

 out authority and wrong. It is a vain effort to 

 add to Constitution by a law. The descriptive 

 words in the amendment are * privileges and 

 immunities,' and them I have defined in the 

 light of authority and reason. 



" This section gives to any person who may 

 have been injured in any of his rights, privi- 

 leges, or immunities of person or property, a 

 civil action for damages against the wrong- 

 doer in the Federal courts. It is a covert at- 

 tempt to transfer another large portion of 

 jurisdiction from the State tribunals, to which 

 it of right belongs, to those of the United 

 States. It is neither authorized nor expedient, 

 and is not calculated to bring peace, or order, 

 or domestic content and prosperity to the dis- 

 turbed society of the South. The contrary 

 will certainly be its effect. 



" Look at the next section of this measure. 

 This section is pregnant in every line with 

 vice, usurpation, and danger. The, offences 

 here named need not be committed, as under 

 the first section, under color of State laws. 

 If they are calculated to infringe any of the 



rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens, as 

 construed by the Radical party, officers, or 

 courts (and certainly all crimes have such ef- 

 fect), then the jurisdiction of Federal courts 

 attaches. The crimes named are not even re- 

 quired to be committed, but, if two or more 

 persons combine to commit any such crinie, 

 and any one of them does any act to effect tJte 

 object, the guilt of all the parties is fixed, the 

 jurisdiction is snatched from the State, and the 

 work of centralization or anarchy goes on. I 

 am perplexed to imagine a rational cause or 

 justification for such a law. It looks to the 

 complete subversion of the power of the States 

 to enforce their criminal laws, adopt and exe- 

 cute their own policy, or protect their own 

 citizens and society. This section attempts a 

 very shabby evasion of an express limitation 

 upon the power of Congress in this direction. 

 Its criminal jurisdiction is rigidly confined to 

 the punishment of crimes committed within 

 places subject to its exclusive jurisdiction, like 

 this District, or forts and arsenals, and to 

 crimes against the revenue, or other clearly 

 granted powers of general control and regula- 

 tion. 



" In the case of Cohens vs. The State of Vir- 

 ginia, Chief-Justice Marshall declared : 



Connected with the power to legislate within this 

 District (of Columbia) is a similar power in forts, 

 arsenals, dock-yards, etc. Congress has a, right to 

 punish murder in a fort, or other place, within its 

 exclusive jurisdiction, but no general right to punish 

 murder committed within any of the States. * * 4 



So, in the same act (the act of 1790), section six, a 

 person, who, having knowledge of the commission 

 of murder, or other felony, on the high-seas, or with- 

 in any fort, arsenal, dock-yard^ magazine, or other 

 place or district of country within the sole and exclu- 

 sive jurisdiction of the United States, shall conceal 

 the same, etc., shall be judged guilty of misprision 

 of felony. It is clear that Congress cannot pumsh fel- 

 onies generally, and, of consequence, cannot punish 

 misprision of felony. It is equally clear that a State 

 Legislature, the State of Maryland, for example, can- 

 not punish those who, in another State, conceal a 

 felony committed in Maryland. 6 Wheat., 264. 



"But the third section of this bill, Mr. 

 Speaker, is worse in all its purposes and in- 

 tents and policy than either of the others. It 

 declares that 



In all cases where insurrection, domestic violence, 

 unlawful combinations, or conspiracies in any State 

 shall so far obstruct or hinder the execution of the 

 laws thereof as to deprive any portion or class of the 

 people of such State of any of the rights, privileges, or 

 immunities named in, ana secured ly, this act, and the 

 constituted authorities of such State shall either be 

 unable to, or shall, from any, cause, fail in or refuse 

 protection of the people in' such rights, and shall fail 

 or neglect, through the proper authorities, to apply 

 to the President of the United States for aid in that 

 behalf, such facts shall be deemed a denial by such 

 State of the equal protection of the laws to which they 

 are entitled under the fourteenth article of amend- 

 ments to the Constitution of the United States 5 and 

 ' ' ful for the President. 



"* T j7 ' 



means, as 



of the United States, or of either, or 



he may deem necessary, for the suppression of ^ such 



insurrection, domestic violence, or combinations ; 



