CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



107 



Tliis is also eminently correct as the word was 

 Jim- doiil>t!-*s intruded to be used. The Uni- 

 Mates is indeed, and ever has been, a na- 

 tion, and u nut ion of the highest type. It is a 

 IV.Ieral republic a republic of republics. 

 lU-iirc, tin- armorial motto stamped upon the 

 ^reat seal, as it was in the beginning : ' JSpkt- 

 " ttnum ' a nation of nations I 



" Cut t.> proceed. I wish to call special at- 

 tention to anotlu-r decision, made by the same 

 triliunal at the same term (tee 16 Wallace, 

 138, l.v.M, giving additional light upon the true 

 construction of the fourteenth amendment, 

 which very clearly shows that the power 

 ciainiod under it, even as it stands, cannot 

 ju-tify the passage of this bill, and that the 

 rights embraced within its provisions are not 

 of that character which can be rightfully legis- 

 lated for by congressional enactment. I quote 

 extensively, for nothing I could say could im- 

 part either force to the argument or clearness 

 to its conclusion. They say : 



In regard to that amendment (the fourteenth) 

 counsel for the plaintiff in this court truly says that 

 there are certain privileges and immunities which 

 belong to a -citizen of the United States as such, oth- 

 erwise it would be nonsense for the fourteenth amend- 

 ment to prohibit a State from abridging them ; and 

 he proceeds to argue that admission to the bar of a 

 State of a person who possesses the requisite learn- 

 ing and character is one of those which a State may 

 not deny. 



In this latter proposition we are not able to con- 

 cur with counsel.' We agree with him that there are 

 privileges and immunities belonging to citizens of 

 the United States in that relation and character, and 

 that it is these and these alone which a State is for- 

 bidden to abridge. But the right to admission to 

 practice in the courts of a State is not one of them. 

 This right in no sense depends on citizenship of the 

 United States. It has not, so far as we know, ever 

 been made in any State, or in any case, to depend 

 on citizenship at all. Certainly many prominent 

 and distinguished lawyers have been admitted to 

 practice both in the State and Federal courts who 

 were not citizens of the United States or any State. 

 But on whatever basis this right may be placed, so 

 far as it can have any relation to citizenship at all, it 

 would seem that, as to the courts of a State, it would 

 relate to citizenship of the State ; and as to Federal 

 courts, it would relate to citizenship of the United 

 States. 



The opinion just delivered in the Slaughter-house 

 cases (16 Wallace, page 86) renders elaborate argu- 

 ment in the present case unnecessary ; for, unless 

 we are wholly and radically mistaken in the princi- 

 ples on which those cases are decided, the right to 

 control and regulate the granting of license to prac- 

 tise law in the courts of a State is one of those pow- 

 ers which are not transferred for its protection to the 

 Federal Government, and its exercise is in no man- 

 ner governed or controlled by citizenship of the 

 United States in the party seeking such license. 



It is unnecessary to repeat the argument on which 

 the judgment in those cases is founded. It is suffi- 

 cient to say they are conclusive of the present case. 



" If it is within the reserved powers of a 

 State to deny the right of admission to the 

 bar to any who may be held to be her citizens, 

 or citizens of the United States, is it not much 

 more one of her reserved rights to say who 

 may, or who may not, be admitted into her 



iblic schools or other institutions ? 



" Here I leave the question, 10 far a* our 

 powers over the subject-manor are conc< 

 I consider it as settled by the hichcMt judicial 

 tribunal of the country, so far as that tribunal 

 is competent to settle any question of constitu- 

 tional law. 



" But, in the second place, among the rea- 

 sons for my opposition to this bill, 1 oppose it 

 because of its inexpediency. Even if the pow- 

 er were, without question or doubt, vested in 

 Congress to pass municipal regulations of this 

 sort to operate over the people of the several 

 States of the Union, I think it would be ex- 

 ceedingly injudicious and unwise to exercise it. 

 Better leave all such matters to the States. In 

 point of fact, I do not believe the colored peo- 

 ple of Georgia have any desire for mixed school*, 

 and very little, indeed, for mixed churches, as 

 contemplated by this measure. The tendency 

 on their part, throughout the State, in all the 

 religious denominations, except the Catholic, 

 is to separate from the whites in church asso- 

 ciation and organization. In all instances, 

 within my knowledge, the whites have been 

 perfectly willing, and even solicitous, for them 

 to remain and worship in the same houses and 

 before the same altars; but they preferred to 

 go by themselves. So with the schools. They 

 have no desire or wish for mixed schools com- 

 posed of white and colored children. All they 

 want is their right and just participation in the 

 common-school fund in schools of their own. 

 This they now have in Georgia. They also 

 have a university for themselves at Atlanta, 

 aided by the State ; as the State University for 

 whites is in like manner aided by the State. 

 They have no desire for any thing partaking 

 of the character of social rights; and if the 

 people, colored and white, in the several 

 Southern States, shall be left to themselves to 

 work out their own destiny under the present 

 system, subject alone to the controlling law of 

 justice, as before stated, without external in- 

 terference of any sort, it will, in my judgment, 

 be infinitely better for both races. Reciprocal 

 duties will soon, of themselves, bring about 

 as much harmony and concord as are usually 

 found in any State or country. 



" Interference by the Federal Government, 

 even if the power were clear and indisputable, 

 would be against the very genius and entire 

 spirit of our whole- system. If there is one 

 truth which stands out prominently above all 

 others in the history of these States, it is that 

 the germinal and seminal principle of American 

 constitutional liberty is the absolute, unre- 

 stricted right of State self-government in all 

 purely internal municipal affairs. 



" Let us not do by the passage of this bill 

 what our highest judicial tribunal has said we 

 have no rightful power to do. If you who call 

 yourselves ^Republicans shall, in obedience to 

 what you consider a party behest, pass it in the 

 vain expectation that the republican principles 

 of the old and true Jeffersonian school are dead, 

 be assured you are indulging a fatal delusion. 



