212 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



was my opinion about it then ; and tins amend- 

 ment carries out what I believed to be the law 

 of the land at that time. However, as I have 

 already explained, others took a different view 

 in consequence of the existence of slavery, 

 which they held to be the normal condition 

 of the colored man. The people of the South- 

 ern States always insisted that slavery was not 

 established by statute law. Some of them in- 

 sisted that the colored man was a slave by na- 

 ture. They did not look to statutes to make 

 him so. This amendment simply carries out 

 the provisions of the law, as I understood it 

 before, and makes it certain that all persons, 

 of whatever color, born in the United States, 

 are citizens. 



u The difference between the Senator from 

 Wisconsin and myself is, as to what are the 

 privileges and immunities of citizens of the 

 United States. I insist that the privileges and 

 immunities belonging to the citizen of the 

 United States as such are of a national char- 

 acter, and such as the nation is bound to pro- 

 tect, whether the citizen be in foreign lands, 

 or in any of the States of the Union. The 

 Government of the United States protects the 

 citizen of the United States to the same extent 

 in Carolina or Massachusetts as it protects him 

 in Portugal or in England. National citizen- 

 ship is one thing, and State citizenship an- 

 other ; and before this constitutional amend- 

 ment was adopted the same obligation, in my 

 judgment, rested upon the Government of the 

 United States to protect citizens of the United 

 States as now. The next clause of the four- 

 teenth amendment is this : 



Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, 

 liberty, or property, without due process of la\v. 



" That was the Constitution applicable to 

 the Government of the United States before 

 the adoption of the late amendments. The 

 Federal Government had no authority under 

 the Constitution as it was amended, in 1V91 

 I think, to deprive any person of life, liberty, 

 or property, without due process of law. That 

 inhibition did not extend to the States, but all 

 the States had adopted a similar clause in their 

 State constitutions. Every *one of them, as 

 far as I have examined, had done so ; but 

 there was no clause in the Constitution of the 

 United States binding them to carry out this 

 provision. There is no change in that respect, 

 so far as the States are concerned, and the 

 Federal Government cannot interfere with the 

 States so long as they do not deprive some 

 person of life, liberty, or property, without 

 dae process of law. If they should, then the 

 power is given to the Federal Government to 

 correct that violation of the Constitution of 

 the United States. It may now prevent any 

 State from depriving any person of life, lib- 

 erty, or property, without due process of law. 

 I am not now speaking of the machinery for 

 doing it ; but the power is now in the Federal 

 Government, under the fourteenth amend- 



ment, to prevent a State doing what no State 

 would undertake to do without a violation of 

 its own constitution. 



" Then follows the other clause : 



Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the 

 equal protection of the laws. 



" That is a new provision, and the Federal 

 Government is now vested with power to see 

 to it that no State deprives any person of life, 

 liberty, or property, without due process of 

 law, or denies to any person within its juris- 

 diction the equal protection of the laws; just 

 as, under the old Constitution, no State could 

 pass a law impairing the obligation of con- 

 tracts. The Federal Government was vested 

 with power to see that no State did pass a 

 law impairing the obligation of contracts. But 

 suppose a State did do it ? Suppose a State 

 passed an ex post facto law or a law impairing 

 the obligation of contracts? That act was 

 void, and it was the duty of the State courts 

 to pronounce it void, which, in some instances, 

 they did. But suppose the State courts up- 

 held this void act of the State Legislature, 

 which impaired the obligation of contracts ; 

 what then ? The Federal Government inter- 

 fered and declared the law invalid, and afford- 

 ed to the party the means to enforce his con- 

 tract as it had been made. 



" Now, suppose in the cases arising under 

 the fourteenth amendment that a State at- 

 tempts to deprive a person of life, liberty, or 

 property, without due process of law ; or sup- 

 pose that a State denies to a person within its 

 jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, 

 then the Federal Government has a right to 

 set aside this action of the State authorities, 

 and see to it that the person is protected in 

 his life and his liberty and his property, un- 

 less they are taken from him by due process 

 of law, and that he receives the equal protec- 

 tion of the laws, just as it furnished the means 

 to give him the enforcement of his contract 

 under the old Constitution." 



Mr. Carpenter, of "Wisconsin, said : " The 

 prohibition in the old Constitution, that no 

 State should pass a law impairing the obliga- 

 tion of contracts, was a negative prohibition 

 laid upon the State. Congress was not au- 

 thorized to interfere in case the State violated 

 that provision. It is true that when private 

 rights were affected by such a State law, and 

 that was brought before the judiciary, either 

 of the State or nation, it was the duty of the 

 court to pronounce the act void ; but there 

 the matter ended. Under the present Consti- 

 tution, however, in regard to those rights 

 which are secured by the fourteenth amend- 

 ment, they are not left as the right of the citi- 

 zen in regard to laws impairing the obligation 

 of contracts was left, to be disposed of by the 

 courts as the cases should arise between man 

 and man, but Congress is clothed with the 

 affirmative power and jurisdiction to correct 

 the evil. 



