CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



165 



Casscrly, Conkling, Cooper, Davis of Kentucky, 

 Hamilton of Maryland, Howe, Kellogg, Lewis, Mor- 

 rill of Maine, Patterson, Pratt, Kamsay, Kice, Sauls- 

 bury, Sawyer, Sprague, and Stewart 20. 



So the motion was not agreed to. 



The Yice-President : " The question recurs 

 now on the amendment of the Senator from 

 Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner)." 



Mr. Carpenter : " Is it in order at this time 

 to move a substitute for the amendment of the 

 Senator from Massachusetts ? " 



The Vice-President : "It is." 



Mr. Carpenter : " I move to amend the amend- 

 ment by substituting for it what I send to the 

 Chair." 



The Chief Clerk read as follows : 



SEO. . Whoever, being a corporation or natural 

 person and owner, or in charge of any public inn 

 or of any place of public amusement or entertain- 

 ment for which a license from any legal authority 

 is required, or of any line of stage-coaches, railroad, 

 or other means of public carriage of passengers or 

 freight, or of any cemetery, or other benevolent in- 

 stitutions, or any public school supported at public 

 expense or by endowment for public use, shall make 

 any distinction as to admission or accommodation 

 therein of any citizen of the United States because 

 of race, color, nationality, or previous condition of 

 servitude, shall, on conviction thereof, be fined not 

 less than $500 or more than $5,000 for each offence, 

 to bo recovered by- information filed by the district 

 attorney in any court haying jurisdiction, upon the 

 complaint of any person injured, one-half to the use 

 of the United States, and one-half to the use of the 

 complainant. 



SEO. . That the offences under this act may be 

 prosecuted before any territorialj district, or circuit 

 court of the United States, having jurisdiction of 

 crimes at the place where the ofi'ence was charged 

 to have been committed. 



The Vice-President: "The question is on 

 the amendment to the amendment." 



Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, said: " Will not 

 the Senator from "Wisconsin point out wherein 

 this differs from the amendment of the Sen- 

 ator from Massachusetts? " 



Mr. Carpenter : " This amendment omits all 

 regulation of churches." 



Mr. Pomeroy: "Is that all? " 



Mr. Carpenter : " It puts the basis of Federal 

 interference, not upon the mere fact that these 

 benevolent institutions are incorporated, but 

 upon the fact that they are supported by taxa- 

 tion or endowment for public use. The object 

 of this substitute is to base Federal interfer- 

 ence in all these institutions upon the fact that 

 they are supported at the public expense." 



Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, said : " Mr. President, 

 I have carefully examined these two proposi- 

 tions, and am clearly of the opinion that, with 

 a single doubt upon one section of the amend- 

 ment offered by the Senator from Massachu- 

 setts, it is within our constitutional power, and 

 that the amendment proposed by the Senator 

 from Wisconsin is far from being an improve- 

 ment upon that amendment. 



" The_ amendment suggested by the Senator, 

 from Wisconsin is a short criminal section, 

 punishing as a crime, by a prosecution in the 

 name of the United States, the denial to any 



person, on account of race, color, or previous 

 condition of servitude, of the right to stop at 

 an inn, to travel on a highway, to use the 

 services of a common carrier, to participate in 

 the ordinary public worship open to all other 

 citizens, and to exercise the common rights of 

 citizens freely granted to all citizens except 

 those of African descent. 



"The first objection I have to this amend- 

 ment is that the remedy is inadequate. The 

 only way you can enforce an obligation to do 

 justice to citizens is by giving a private right 

 to the injured party to sue. The only remedy 

 provided here in this act of Congress is a 

 criminal remedy, a criminal prosecution. I 

 doubt very much, in the absence of specific 

 law, whether under the provisions of the four- 

 teenth amendment, and under the provisions 

 of this section, any person injured would have 

 a right to sue in the courts of the United 

 States. There is no express provision giving 

 a remedy, a civil action in a court of the 

 United States, for an injury of this kind, and 

 without that express provision I doubt whether 

 the courts would entertain jurisdiction of cases 

 of this kind. So that the only remedy of any 

 person deprived of any right to stop at an inn, 

 the right to be carried on a railroad, the right 

 to go wherever any other citizen may freely 

 go, is a criminal proceeding in the courts of 

 the United States, now already overrun with 

 business. It seems to me, with due deference 

 to the judgment of my honorable friend, that 

 this remedy is inadequate." 



Mr. Morton : " I shall detain the Senate but 

 a few moments in asking attention to the 

 meaning of the last clause of the first section 

 of the fourteenth amendment. I will not dis- 

 cuss the question as to the right or power of 

 Congress to provide for the admission of col- 

 ored men into social clubs ; but the question 

 arises upon this clause of the fourteenth 

 amendment as to what the power of Congress 

 is in regard to the substantial rights and 

 equality of people in the States. The conclu- 

 sion of this section reads thus : " 



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

 erty, or property, without due process of law, nor 

 deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal 

 protection of the laws. 



" I desire to inquire what is meant by ' the 

 equal protection of the laws ' which a State 

 shall not deprive any person of? To what 

 does the word 'protection' refer? Does it 

 mean that the State shall not deprive a man 

 of the equal protection of the law for his per- 

 son ? Will any one contend that it shall have 

 a construction so narrow as that? Will it be 

 contended that it means that a State shall not 

 deprive a person of the equal protection of the 

 law for his property ; that it shall be confined 

 to that? I submit that, when it declares that 

 no State shall deprive any person of the equal 

 protection of the laws, it means substantially 

 that no person shall be deprived by a State of 

 the equal benefit of the laws; that the word 



