152 



COXGKESS, UNITED STATES. 



proposed simply destroys discrimination be- 

 tween citizens of different races. 



" I desired to submit the amendment I have 

 stated and one or two others to the Senator 

 from Massachusetts, that his amendment may 

 be perfected. After it shall have been thus 

 amended there will still be objection to it. 

 There is in almost, every town in the land a 

 church where the real estate has been pur- 

 chased and the building erected from the hard 

 earnings of colored people, the congregation 

 being composed entirely of colored people, 

 and the church their property. "We do not 

 seek to pass a law that shall divest them of 

 such churches. The white population are the 

 more numerous, and possibly grasping ; the 

 property has appreciated in value ; there is no 

 propriety in enabling the white citizens, by 

 giving them the same privileges in these 

 churches that the colored people possess, to 

 wrest this property from the colored people. 

 There are churches of that kind in this city, in 

 the city in which I reside, and throughout the 

 Union. This is also true of schools and of 

 colleges. I would avoid this effect of the law 

 by adding as an amendment, at the end of the 

 first section, as follows : " 



Provided, That churches, schools, cemeteries, and 

 institutions of learning established exclusively for 

 either the white or the colored race, shall not be 

 taken from the control of those who established 

 them, but shall remain devoted to their use. 



"You cannot make the amendment I pro- 

 pose extend only to the colored people without 

 falling into the absurdity of discriminating 

 against whites while attempting to abolish the 

 distinction of races. Therefore, let the law be 

 that churches, schools, cemeteries, etc., estab- 

 lished exclusively for either of the races, shall 

 not be taken from their control, but remain 

 devoted to their use. That provision modifies 

 to some degree the law, but it does not affect 

 the main subjects of the law, to wit, common 

 carriers, inn-keepers, schools, etc., but does 

 perpetuate to the colored people their own 

 institutions. 



" The second section provides : " 

 That any person violating the foregoing provision, 

 or aiding m its violation, or inciting thereto, shall, 

 lor every such offence, forfeit and pay the sum of 

 ?500 to the person aggrieved thereby. 



"If a whole congregation or all the pas- 

 sengers of ^a steamboat or car violate some of 

 the provisions of the foregoing section, every 

 one so aiding in or inciting to such violation 

 should not be liable to and the party aggrieved 

 be entitled to recover from each one a penalty 

 of $500. And in case the offence complained 

 of be a refusal of burial, who is to recover the 

 penalty ? The deceased is not aggrieved, and 

 cannot bring suit if he is. I suggest after the 

 word 'grave,' eleventh line of the section, this 

 amendment : " 



Provided, That the party aggrieved shall not re- 

 cover more than one penalty ; and, where the offence 

 is a refusal of burial, the penalty aforesaid may be 



recovered by the heirs-at-law of the person to whose 

 body burial has been so refused. 



" There is still another amendment to this 

 second section, and that is to strike out all 

 the residue of the section, which is in these 

 words : " 



And any corporation, association, or individual 

 holding a charter or license under national or State 

 authority, violating the aforesaid provisions, shall on 

 conviction thereof, forfeit such charter or license. 



"I understand that the Federal Govern- 

 ment, excepting for a national purpose, can- 

 not grant a charter, cannot incorporate a bank 

 or railroad company for a State, that being 

 beyond the jurisdiction of Congress ; and so 

 unquestionably it is beyond the power of 

 Federal jurisdiction to forfeit a State charter. 

 Besides, the penalty suggested is unreason- 

 able. Were I ejected from the cars of the Bal- 

 timore & Ohio Railroad Company, there would 

 be no propriety in mulcting them in damages 

 to the amount of $20,000,000. I suppose that 

 the franchises of that company, which the bill 

 would under such circumstances forfeit, are 

 worth that. The penalties imposed in the 

 previous part of the section, $500 by personal 

 suit and $500 on indictment for misdemeanor, 

 are sufficient for the offence committed. And 

 further, the stockholders of the company 

 offending might be favorable to the spirit of 

 the bill he would promote ; they might be 

 the very colored people whom we seek to 

 protect and who had been guilty of no offence, 

 and yet the forfeiture of the charter would 

 destroy their property and render them bank- 

 rupt. The penalties in the foregoing part of 

 the section are abundant. 



" The section next to the last also requires 

 amending. It provides that" 



Every law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or cus- 

 tom, whether national or State, inconsistent with this 

 act, or making any discriminations against any per- 

 son on account of color, by the word " white," is 

 hereby repealed. 



"I understand that Congress have no power 

 to repeal a State statute any more than we 

 have to enact a State statute. That provision 

 of the law is unconstitutional, and is entirely 

 unnecessary. If we enact a constitutional 

 law, all laws of the States inconsistent there- 

 with are virtually annulled, because the Con- 

 stitution of the United States provides that 

 ' this Constitution and the laws made in pur- 

 suance thereof shall be the supreme law of the 

 land, the constitution and laws of any State to 

 the contrary notwithstanding.' The section 

 is unnecessary, and worse. In any view we 

 should strike out the words * whether national 

 or State,' and thus suffer the section to have 

 such effect as the courts may properly give 

 to it. 



" The amendment being thus modified, its 

 effect is not impaired. The question now 

 arises whether this amendment is within the 

 constitutional power of the General Govern- 

 ment. The Ku-klux bill, which we passed 





