CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalised in the 



i, iiud rtulijoa to tho jurindirti-m thereof, 



..' t lu- Uniti-d States and of the State 



u tlicv reside. No State shall make or enl'oroe 



.w wili.'ii >hull abridge tliu privileges or im- 



im of the United Stutus; nor shall 



:iiiy I..T--M .1' lii'.-. liberty, or prop- 



.itli'Hii <lu<> i-rouens ot' law ; nor deny to auy 



n witliin its jurisdiction the equal protection of 



the laws. 



" Now, what does the court say in comment- 

 ing upon tho amendment ? 



" Let me read a few paragraphs from the 

 opinion : 



The next observation is more important in view of 

 the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is 

 that the distiiu-U"ii U-tweeen citizenship of the Uni- 

 ted States and citizenship of a State is clearly rec- 

 ognized and established. Not only may a man be a 

 n of the United States without being a citizen 

 of a State, but an important element is necessary to 

 convert the former into the latter. He must reside 

 within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is 

 only necessary that he should bo born or naturalized 

 in the United States to bo a citizen of the Union. 



It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship 

 of the United States and a citizenship of a State 

 which are distinct from each other, and which de- 

 pend upon different characteristics or circumstances 

 in the individual. 



We think this distinction and its explicit recogni- 

 tion in this amendment of great weight in this ar- 

 gument, because the next paragraph of this same 

 section, which is the one mainfy relied on by the 

 plaintiffs in error, speaks onlv of privileges and im- 

 munities of citizens of the United States, and does not 

 speak of those of citizens of the several States. The 

 argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs rests 

 wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the 

 same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed 

 by the clause are the same. 



The language is, " No State shall make or enforce 

 any law which shall abridge the privileges or im- 

 munities of citizens of the United States.'''' It is a 

 little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a 

 protection to the citizen of a State against the legis- 

 lative power of his own State, that the term " citizen 

 of the State " should be left out when it is so care- 

 fully used, and used in contradistinction to " citizens 

 of the United States," in the very sentence which 

 precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the 

 change in phraseology was adopted understandingly 

 and with a purpose. 



Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of 

 the United States, and of the privileges and immuni- 

 ties of the citizens of the State, and what they re- 

 spectively are, we will presently consider ; but we 

 wish to state here that it is only the former which 

 are placed by this clause under the protection of the 

 Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever 

 they may be, are not intended to have any additional 

 protection by this paragraph of the amendment. If, 

 then, there is a difference between the privileges and 

 immunities belonging to a citizen of the United States 

 as such, and those belonging to the citizen of the State 

 as such, the latter must rest for their securitv and 

 protection where they have heretofore rested, for 

 they are not embraced by this paragraph of the 

 amendment. * * * But when, as in the case before 

 us, these consequences are so serious, so far-reach- 

 ing and pervading, so great a departure from the 

 structure and spirit of our institutions ; when the 

 effect is to fetter and degrade the State governments 

 by subjecting them to the control of Congress in the 

 exercise of powers, heretofore universally conceded 

 to them, of the most ordinary and fundamental char- 

 acter ; when, in fact, it radically changes the whole 

 theory of the relations of the State and Federal Gov- 



ernments to each other and of both th**e government* 

 to the people, the argument DM a forte ttui 

 resistible, in the absence of language which frfrnm 

 such a purpose too clearly to admit of doubt. 



" The whole spirit and bearing of the deci- 

 sion is against the constitutionality of the IMW 

 now proposed, matters of regulation an to ed- 

 ucation, local corporations, and their right* and 

 privileges, being subjects which bear only on 

 the individual as a citizen of the State, ami not 

 as a citizen of the United States. 



" But it is now proposed to legislate in Con- 

 gress as to matters such as the regulation of 

 corporations, inns, endowed seminaries of learn- 

 ing, and how school funds shall be distributed, 

 and to compel all children, white or black, to 

 attend school together. That is a matter for 

 State legislation, and Congress has no right to 

 interfere with it. Surely, sir, the people could 

 establish schools in any of the States which none 

 but white females should attend or that none 

 but white males should attend, and might do 

 the same for colored males and females. That 

 would not at all interfere with the colored popu- 

 lation having their proportion of the taxes col- 

 lected to be expended in the education of col- 

 ored children. We in Kentucky have a right, 

 I say, to arrange separate schools for them, 

 wherein they will get their equal rights. I sup- 

 pose no man will contend that in any school in 

 my State, established expressly for the educa- 

 tion of females, any male negro shall have 

 the right to force himself where no white 

 male can go. The principle may be extended 

 even that far hereafter if Congress enters upon 

 this character of legislation. The eft'ect of try- 

 ing to force the colored children among the 

 whites will not be of any benefit to the negro, 

 but, on the contrary, will be of positive injury. 

 Men make a mistake when they think coer- 

 cion is the appropriate and legitimate province 

 of legislation. Something is due even to the 

 prejudices of men ; something is due to the 

 views which State Legislatures may entertain ; 

 and whenever Congress undertakes to take 

 control of the States and to deprive them of 

 power, either from spite or any other cause, it 

 is acting unwisely, because it tends to destroy 

 whatever is valuable in the common-school sys- 

 tem by making people loathe and despise in- 

 stead of love and cherish it. 



"When you undertake, by your legislation 

 here, to force white and black, male and fe- 

 male, into the same school, the men who have 

 wealth will not send their children; but the 

 poor man will be compelled to send his or let 

 them grow up in ignorance and vice, which 

 will be the alternative chosen in most instance*. 

 You will force, in all the States where there is 

 a large colored population, all the skilled in- 

 dustry of other part* of the world away from 

 us, because men who are poor and desire to 

 come among us will not, when they see their 

 richer white neighbors sending their children 

 to private schools or to other States, where 

 they can send then- children nowhere but to be 



