208 



CONGBESS, UNITED STATES. 



The old Jeffersonian, democratic, republican 

 principles are not dead, and will never die so 

 long as a true devotee of liberty lives. They may 

 be buried for a period, as Magna Oharta was 

 trodden under foot in England for more than 

 half a century ; but these principles will come 

 up with renewed energy, as did those of 

 Magna Oharta, and that, too, at no distant day. 

 Old Jeffersonian, democratic, republican prin- 

 ciples dead, indeed! When the tides of ocean 

 cease to ebb and flow, when the winds of 

 heaven are hushed into perpetual silence, when 

 the clouds no longer thunder, when earth's 

 electric bolts are no longer felt or heard, when 

 her internal fires go out, then, and not be- 

 fore, will these principles cease to live ; then 

 and not before will these principles cease to 

 animate and move the libarty-loving masses 

 of this country." 



Mr. Elliott, of South Carolina, said : " While 

 I am sincerely grateful for this high mark of 

 courtesy that has been accorded to me by this 

 House, it is a matter of regret to me that it is 

 necessary at this day that I should rise in the 

 presence of an American Congress to advocate 

 a bill which simply asserts equal rights and 

 equal public privileges for all classes of Ameri- 

 can citizens. I regret, sir, that the dark hue 

 of my skin may lend a color to the imputation 

 that I am controlled by motives personal to 

 myself in my advocacy of .this great measure of 

 national justice. Sir, the motive that impels 

 me is restricted by no such narrow boundary, 

 but is as broad as your Constitution. I advo- 

 cate it, sir, because it is right. The bill, how- 

 ever, not only appeals to your justice, but it de- 

 mands a response from your gratitude. 



" The honorable gentleman from Kentucky, 

 always swift to sustain the failing and dishon- 

 ored cause of proscription, rushes forward and 

 flaunts in our faces the decision of the Supreme 

 Court of the Dnited States in the Slaughter- 

 house cases, and in that act he has been will- 

 ingly aided by the gentleman from Georgia. 

 Hitherto, in the contests which have marked 

 the progress of the course of equal civil rights, 

 our opponents have appealed sometimes to cus- 

 tom, sometimes to 'prejudice, more often to 

 pride of race, but they have never sought to 

 shield themselves behind the Supreme Court. 

 But now, for the first time, we are told that 

 we are barred by a decision of that court, 

 from which there is no appeal. If this be true, 

 we must stay our hands. The cause of equal 

 civil rights must pause at the command of a 

 power whose edicts must be obeyed till the 

 fundamental law of our country is changed. 



" Mr. Speaker, I venture to say here in the 

 presence of the gentleman from Kentucky, and 

 the gentleman from Georgia, and in the pres- 

 ence of the whole country, that there is not a 

 line or word, not a thought or dictum even, in 

 the' decision of the Supreme Court in the great 

 Slaughter-house cases which casts a shadow 

 of doubt on the right of Congress to pass the 

 pending bill, or to adopt such other legislation 



as it may judge proper and necessary to secure 

 perfect equality before the law to every citizen 

 of the republic. ' Sir, I protest against the dis- 

 honor now cast upon our Supreme Court by 

 both the gentleman from Kentucky and the 

 gentleman from Georgia. In other days, when 

 the whole country was bowing beneath the 

 yoke of slavery, when press, pulpit, platform, 

 Congress, and courts, felt the fatal power of the 

 slave oligarchy, I remember a decision of that 

 court which no American now reads without 

 shame and humiliation. But those days are 

 past. The Supreme Court of to-day is a tri- 

 bunal as true to freedom as any department 

 of this Government, and I am honored with 

 the opportunity of repelling a deep disgrace 

 which the gentleman from Kentucky, backed 

 and sustained as he is by the gentleman from 

 Georgia, seeks to put upon it. 



"What were these Slaughter-house cases? 

 The gentleman should be aware that a decision 

 of any court should be examined in the light 

 of the exact question which is brought before 

 it for decision. That is all that gives authority 

 to any decision. 



" The State of Louisiana, by act of her Legis- 

 lature, had conferred on certain persons the 

 exclusive right to maintain stock-landings and 

 slaughter-houses within the city of New Or- 

 leans, or the parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, 

 and Saint Bernard, in that State. The cor- 

 poration which was thereby chartered was 

 invested with the sole and exclusive privilege 

 of conducting and carrying on the live-stock- 

 landing and slaughter-house business within the 

 limits designated. 



" The Supreme Court of Louisiana sustained 

 the validity of the act conferring these exclu- 

 sive privileges, and the plaintiffs in error 

 brought the case before the Supreme Court of 

 the United States for review. The plaintiffs in 

 error contended that the act in question was 

 void, because, first, it established a monopoly 

 which was in derogation of common right and 

 in contravention of the common law; and, 

 second, that the grant of such exclusive privi- 

 leges was in violation of the thirteenth and 

 fourteenth amendments of the Constitution of 

 the United States. 



" It thus appears from a simple statement of 

 the case that the question which was before 

 the court was not whether a State law which 

 denied to a particular portion of her citizens 

 the rights conferred on her citizens generally, 

 on account of race, color, or previous condition 

 of servitude, was unconstitutional because in 

 conflict with the recent amendments, but 

 whether an act which conferred on certain 

 citizens exclusive privileges for police purposes 

 was in conflict' therewith, because imposing an 

 involuntary servitude forbidden by the thir- 

 teenth amendment, or abridging the rights and 

 immunities of citizens of the United States, or 

 denying the equal protection of the laws, pro- 

 hibited by the fourteenth amendment. 



" On the part of the defendants in error it 



