                        36 page printout

    Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.

          Contents of this file                           page

     Introduction by the Hon. Frederick Douglass            1
     CIVIL RIGHTS.                                          2

                          ****     ****

          This file, its printout, or copies of either
          are to be copied and given away, but NOT sold.

          Bank of Wisdom, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201

                The Works of ROBERT G. INGERSOLL

                          ****    ****

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     On the 22d of October, 1883, a vast number of citizens met at
Lincoln Hall, Washington, D.C., to give expression to their views
concerning the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States,
in which it is held that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional.

     Col. Robert G. Ingersoll was one of the speakers.

     The Hon. Frederick Douglass introduced him as follows:

          Abou Ben Adhem -- (may his tribe increase!)
          Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
          And saw within the moonlight of his room,
          Making it rich and like a lily in bloom,
          An angel writing in a book of gold:
          Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold;
          And to the presence in the room he said,
          "What writest thou?" The vision raised its head,
          And, with a look made all of sweet accord,
          Answered, "The names of those who love the Lord."
          "And is mine one?" asked Abou. "Nay, not so,"
          Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
          But cheerily still; and said, "I pray thee, then,
          Write me as one that loves his fellow-men."
          The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
          It came again, with a great wakening light,
          And showed the names whom love of God had blest;
          And, lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.

     I have the honor to introduce Robert G. Ingersoll.

                     MR. INGERSOLL'S SPEECH.

     LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:

     We have met for the purpose of saying a few words about the
recent decision of the Supreme Court, in which that tribunal has
held the first and second sections of the Civil Rights Act to be
unconstitutional; and so held in spite of the fact that for years 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                1

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

the people of the North and South have, with singular unanimity,
supposed the Act to be constitutional -- supposed that it was
upheld by the 13th and 14th Amendments, -- and so supposed because
they knew with certainty the intention of the framers of the
amendments. They knew this intention, because they knew what the
enemies of the amendments and the enemies of the Civil Rights Act
claimed was the intention. And they also knew what the friends of
the amendments and the law admitted the intention to be. The
prejudices born of ignorance and of slavery had died or fallen
asleep, and even the enemies of the amendments and the law had
accepted the situation.

     But I shall speak of the decision as I feel, and in the same
manner as I should speak even in the presence of the Court. You
must remember that I am not attacking persons, but opinions -- not
motives, but reasons -- not judges, but decisions.

     The Supreme Court has decided:

     1. That the first and second sections of the Civil Rights Act
of March 1, 1875, are unconstitutional, as applied to the States --
not being authorized by the 13th and 14th Amendments.

     2. That the 14th Amendment is prohibitory upon the States
only, and the legislation forbidden to be adopted by Congress for
enforcing it, is not "direct" legislation, but "corrective," --
such as may be necessary or proper for counteracting and
restraining the effect of laws or acts passed or done by the
several States.

     3. That the 13th Amendment relates only to slavery and
involuntary servitude, which it abolishes.

     4. That the 13th Amendment establishes universal freedom in
the United States.

     5. That Congress may probably pass laws directly enforcing its
provisions.

     6. That such legislative power in Congress extends only to the
subject of slavery, and its incidents.

     7. That the denial of equal accommodations in inns, public
conveyances and places of public amusement, imposes no badge of
slavery or involuntary servitude upon the party, but at most
infringes rights which are protected from State aggression by the
14th Amendment.

     8. The Court is uncertain whether the accommodations and
privileges sought to be protected by the first and second sections
of the Civil Rights Act are or are not rights constitutionally
demandable, -- and if they are, in what form they are to be
protected.

     9. Neither does the Court decide whether the law, as it
stands, is operative in the Territories and the District of
Columbia.


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                2

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     10. Neither does the Court decide whether Congress, under the
commercial power, may or may not pass a law securing to all persons
equal accommodations on lines of public conveyance between two or
more States.

     11. The Court also holds, in the present case, that until some
State law has been passed, or some State action through its
officers or agents has been taken adverse to the rights of citizens
sought to be protected by the 14th Amendment, no legislation of the
United States under said amendment, or any proceeding under such
legislation, can be called into activity, for the reason that the
prohibitions of the amendment are against State laws and acts done
under State authority. The essence of said decision being, that the
managers and owners of inns, railways, and all public conveyances,
of theaters and all places of public amusement, may discriminate on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and
that the citizen so discriminated against, is without redress.

     This decision takes from seven millions of people the shield
of the Constitution. It leaves the best of the colored race at the
mercy of the meanest of the white. It feeds fat the ancient grudge
that vicious ignorance bears toward race and color. It will be
approved and quoted by hundreds of thousands of unjust men. The
masked wretches who, in the darkness of night, drag the poor negro
from his cabin, and lacerate with whip and thong his quivering
flesh, will, with bloody hands, applaud the Supreme Court. The men
who, by mob violence, prevent the negro from depositing his ballot
-- who with gun and revolver drive him from the polls, and those
who insult with vile and vulgar words the inoffensive colored girl,
will welcome this decision with hyena joy. The basest will rejoice
-- the noblest will mourn.

     But even in the presence of this decision, we must remember
that it is one of the necessities of government that there should
be a court of last resort; and while all courts will more or less
fail to do justice, still, the wit of man has, as yet, devised no
better way. Even after reading this decision, we must take it for
granted that the judges of the Supreme Court arrived at their
conclusions honestly and in accordance with the best light they
had. While they had the right to render the decision, every citizen
has the right to give his opinion as to whether that decision is
good or bad. Knowing that they are liable to be mistaken, and
honestly mistaken, we should always be charitable enough to admit
that others may be mistaken; and we may also take another step, and
admit that we may be mistaken about their being mistaken. We must
remember, too, that we have to make judges out of men, and that by
being made judges their prejudices are not diminished and their
intelligence is not increased. No matter whether a man wears a
crown or a robe or a rag. Under the emblem of power and the emblem
of poverty, the man alike resides. The real thing is the man -- the
distinction often exists only in the clothes. Take away the crown
-- there is only a man. Remove the robe -- there remains a man.
Take away the rag, and we find at least a man.

     There was a time in this country when all bowed to a decision
of the Supreme Court. It was unquestioned. It was regarded as "a
voice from on high." The people heard and they obeyed. The Dred 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                3

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

Scott decision destroyed that illusion forever. From that day to
this the people have claimed the privilege of putting the decisions
of the Supreme Court in the crucible of reason. These decisions are
no longer exempt from honest criticism. While the decision remains,
it is the law. No matter how absurd, no matter how erroneous, no
matter how contrary to reason and justice, it remains the law. It
must be overturned either by the Court itself (and the Court has
overturned hundreds of its own decisions), or by legislative
action, or by an amendment to the Constitution. We do not appeal to
armed revolution. Our Government is so framed that it provides for
what may be called perpetual peaceful revolution. For the redress
of any grievance, for the purpose of righting any wrong, there is
the perpetual remedy of an appeal to the people.

     We must remember, too, that judges keep their backs to the
dawn. They find whit has been, what is, but not what ought to be.
They are tied and shackled by precedent, fettered by old decisions,
and by the desire to be consistent, even in mistakes. They pass
upon the acts and words of others, and like other people, they are
liable to make mistakes. In the olden time we took what the doctors
gave us, we believed what the preachers said; and accepted, without
question, the judgments of the highest court. Now it is different.
We ask the doctor what the medicine is, and what effect he expects
it to produce. We cross-examine the minister, and we criticize the
decision of the Chief-justice. We do this, because we have found
that some doctors do not kill, that some ministers are quite
reasonable, and that some judges know something about law. In this
country, the people are the sovereigns. All officers -- including
judges -- are simply their servants, and the sovereign has always
the right to give his opinion as to the action of his agent, The
sovereignty of the people is the rock upon which rests the right of
speech and the freedom of the press.

     Unfortunately for us, our fathers adopted the common law of
England -- a law poisoned by kingly prerogative -- by every form of
oppression, by the spirit of caste, and permeated, saturated, with
the political heresy that the people received their rights,
privileges and immunities from the crown. The thirteen original
colonies received their laws, their forms, their ideas of justice,
from the old world. All the judicial, legislative, and executive
springs and sources had been touched and tainted.

     In the struggle with England, our fathers justified their
rebellion by declaring that Nature had clothed all men with the
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The moment
success crowned their efforts, they changed their noble declaration
of equal rights for all, and basely interpolated the word "white."
They adopted a Constitution that denied the Declaration of
Independence -- a Constitution that recognized and upheld slavery,
protected the slave-trade, legalized piracy upon the high seas that
demoralized, degraded, and debauched the nation, and that at last
reddened with brave blood the fields of the Republic.

     Our fathers planted the seeds of injustice, and we gathered
the harvest. In the blood and flame of civil war, we retraced our
fathers' steps. In the stress of war, we implored the aid of 



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                4

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

Liberty, and asked once more for the protection of justice. We
civilized the Constitution of our fathers. We adopted three
Amendments -- the 13th, 14th and 15th -- the Trinity of Liberty.

     Let us examine these amendments:

     "Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place
subject to their jurisdiction.

     "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation."

     Before the adoption of this amendment, the Constitution had
always been construed to be the perfect shield of slavery. In order
that slavery might be protected, the slave States were considered
as sovereign. Freedom was regarded as a local prejudice, slavery as
the ward of the Nation, the jewel of the Constitution. For three-
quarters of a century, the Supreme Court of the United States
exhausted judicial ingenuity in guarding, protecting and fostering
that infamous institution. For the purpose of preserving that
infinite outrage, words and phrases were warped, and stretched, and
tortured, and thumbscrewed, and racked. Slavery was the one sacred
thing, and the Supreme Court was its constitutional guardian.

     To show the faithfulness of that tribunal, I call your
attention to the 3d clause of the 2d section of the 4th article of
the Constitution:

     No person held to service or labor in any State under the laws
thereof, escaping to another, shall, in consequence of any law or
regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but
shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such
service or labor may be due."

     The framers of the Constitution were ashamed to use the word
"slave," and thereupon they said "person." They were ashamed to use
the word "slavery," and they evaded it by saying. "held to service
or labor." They were ashamed to put in the word "master," so they
called him "the party to whom service or labor may be due."

     How can a slave owe service? How can a slave owe labor? How
could a slave make a contract? How could the master have a legal
claim against a slave? And yet, the Supreme Court of the United
States found no difficulty in upholding the Fugitive Slave Law by
virtue of that clause. There were hundreds of decisions declaring
that Congress had power to pass laws to carry that clause into
effect, and it was carried into effect.

     You will observe the wording of this clause:

          "No person held to service or labor in any State
     under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in
     consequence of any law or regulation therein, be
     discharged from such service or labor, but shall be
     delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such
     service or labor may be due."

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                5

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     To whom was this clause directed? To individuals or to States?
It expressly provides that the "person" held to service or labor
shall not be discharged from such service or labor in consequence
of any law or regulation in the "State" to which he has fled. Did
that law apply to States, or to individuals?

     The Supreme Court held that it applied to individuals as well
as to States. Any "person," in any State, interfering with the
master who was endeavoring to steal the person he called his slave,
was liable to indictment, and hundreds and thousands were indicted,
and hundreds languished in prisons because they were noble enough
to hold in infinite contempt such infamous laws and such infamous
decisions. The best men in the United States -- the noblest spirits
under the flag -- were imprisoned because they were charitable,
because they were just, because they showed the hunted slave the
path to freedom, and taught him where to find amid the glittering
host of heaven the blessed Northern Star.

     Every fugitive slave carried that clause with him when he
entered a free State; carried it into every hiding place; and every
Northern man was bound, by virtue of that clause, to act as the spy
and hound of slavery. The Supreme Court, with infinite ease, made
a club of that clause with which to strike down the liberty of the
fugitive and the manhood of the North.

     In the Dred Scott decision it was solemnly decided that a man
of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not, and could not
be, a citizen of a State or of the United States. The Supreme Court
held on the even tenor of its way, and in the Rebellion that
tribunal was about the last fort to surrender.

     The moment the 13th Amendment was adopted, the slaves became
freemen. The distinction between "white" and "colored" vanished.
The negroes became as though they had never been slaves -- as
though they had always been free -- as though they had been white.
They became citizens -- they became a part of "the people," and
"the people" constituted the State, and it was the State thus
constituted that was entitled to the constitutional guarantee of a
republican government.

     These freed men became citizens -- became a part of the State
in which they lived.

     The highest and noblest definition of a State, in our Reports,
was given by justice Wilson, in the case of Chisholm, &c. vs.
Georgia;

          "By a State, I mean a complete body of free persons,
     united for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is
     their own, and to do justice to others."

     Chief justice Chase declared that:

          "The people, in whatever territory dwelling, whether
     temporarily or permanently, or whether organized under regular
     government, or united by less definite relations, constitute
     the State."


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                6

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     Now, if the people, the moment the 13th Amendment was adopted
were all free, and if these people constituted the State; if, under
the Constitution of the United States, every State is guaranteed a
republican government, then it is the duty of the General
Government to see to it that every State has such a government. If
distinctions are made between free men on account of race or color,
the government is not republican. The manner in which this
guarantee of a republican form of government is to be enforced or
made good, must be left to the wisdom and discretion of Congress.

     The 13th Amendment not only destroyed, but it built. It
destroyed the slave-pen, and on its site erected the temple of
Liberty. It did not simply free slaves -- it made citizens. It
repealed every statute that upheld slavery. It erased from every
Report every decision against freedom. It took the word "white"
from every law, and blotted from the Constitution all clauses
acknowledging property in man.

     If, then, all the people in each State, were, by virtue of the
13th Amendment, free, what right had a majority to enslave a
minority? What right had a majority to make any distinctions
between freemen? What right had a majority to take from a minority
any privilege, or any immunity, to which they were entitled as free
men? What right had the majority to make that unequal which the
Constitution made equal?

     Not satisfied with saying that slavery should not exist, we
find in the amendment the words "nor involuntary servitude." This
was intended to destroy every mark and badge of legal inferiority.

     justice Field upon this very question, says:

          "It is, however, clear that the words 'involuntary
     servitude' include something more than slavery, in the strict
     sense of the term. They include also serfage, vassalage,
     villanage, peonage, and all other forms of compulsory service
     for the mere benefit or pleasure of others. Nor is this the
     full import of the term. The abolition of slavery and
     involuntary servitude was intended to make every one born in
     this country a free man, and as such to give him the right to
     pursue the ordinary avocations of life without other restraint
     than such as affects all others, and to enjoy equally with
     them the fruits of his labor. A person allowed to pursue only
     one trade or calling, and only in one locality of the country,
     would not be, in the strict sense of the term, in a condition
     of slavery, but probably no one would deny that he would be in
     a condition of servitude. He certainly would not possess the
     liberties, or enjoy the privileges of a freeman."

     Justice Field also quotes with approval the language of the
counsel for the plaintiffs in the case:

          "Whenever a law of a State, or a law of the United
     States, makes a discrimination between classes of persons
     which deprives the one class of their freedom or their
     property, or which makes a caste of them, to subserve the
     power, pride, avarice, vanity or vengeance of others -- there
     involuntary servitude exists within the meaning of the 13th
     Amendment."
                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                7

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     To show that the framers of the 13th Amendment intended to
blot out every form of slavery and servitude, I call attention to
the Civil Rights Act, approved April 9, 1866, which provided, among
other things, that:

          All persons born in the United States, and not subject to
     any foreign power -- excluding Indians not taxed -- are
     citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every
     race and color, without regard to any previous condition of
     slavery or involuntary servitude, are entitled to the full and
     equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of
     person and property enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be
     subject to like punishments, pains and penalties -- and to
     none other -- any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or
     custom to the contrary notwithstanding; and they shall have
     the same rights in every State and Territory of the United
     States as white persons."

     The Supreme Court, in The Slaughter-House Cases, (16 Wallace,
69) has said that the word servitude has a larger meaning than the
word slavery. "The word 'servitude' implies subjection to the will
of another contrary to the common right." A man is in a state of
involuntary servitude when he is forced to do, or prevented from
doing a thing, not by the law of the State, but by the simple will
of another. He who enjoys less than the common rights of a citizen,
he who can be forced from the public highway at the will of
another, who can be denied entrance to the cars of a common
carrier, is in a state of servitude.

     The 13th Amendment did away with slavery not only, and with
involuntary servitude, but with every badge and brand and stain and
mark of slavery. It abolished forever distinctions on account of
race and color.

     In the language of the Supreme Court:

          "It was the obvious purpose of the 13th Amendment to
     forbid all shades and conditions of African slavery."

     And to that I add, it was the obvious purpose of that
amendment to forbid all shades and conditions of slavery, no matter
of what sort or kind -- all marks of legal inferiority. Each
citizen was to be absolutely free. All his rights complete, whole,
unmaimed and unabridged.

     From the moment of the adoption of that amendment, the law
became color-blind. All distinctions on account of complexion
vanished. It took the whip from the hand of the white man, and put
the nation's flag above the negro's hut. It gave horizon, scope and
dome to the lowest life. It stretched a sky studded with stars of
hope above the humblest head.

     The Supreme Court has admitted, in the very case we are now
discussing, that:

          "Under the 13th Amendment the legislation" -- meaning the
     legislation of Congress -- "so far as necessary or proper to 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                8

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     eradicate all forms and incidents of slavery and involuntary
     servitude, may be direct and primary, operating upon the acts
     of individuals, whether sanctioned by State legislation or
     not."

     Here we have the authority for dealing with individuals.

     The only question then remaining is, whether an individual,
being the keeper of a public inn, or the agent of a railway
corporation, created by a State, can be held responsible in a
Federal Court for discriminating against a citizen of the United
States on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude. If such discrimination is a badge of slavery, or places
the party discriminated against in a condition of involuntary
servitude, then the Civil Rights Act may be upheld by the 13th
Amendment.

     In The United States vs. Harris, 106 U.S., 640, the Supreme
Court says:

          "It is clear that the 13th Amendment, besides abolishing
     forever slavery and involuntary servitude within the United
     States, gives power to Congress to protect all citizens from
     being in any way subjected to slavery or involuntary
     servitude, except for the punishment of crime, and in the
     enjoyment of that freedom which it was the object of the
     amendment to secure."

     This declaration covers the entire case.

     I agree with justice Field:

          "The 13th Amendment is not confined to African slavery.
     It is general and universal in its application -- prohibiting
     the slavery of white men as well as black men, and not
     prohibiting mere slavery in the strict sense of the term, but
     involuntary servitude in every form." 16 Wallace, 90.

     The 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude shall exist. Who must see to it that this
declaration is carried out? There can be but one answer. It is the
duty of Congress.

     At last the question narrows itself to this: Is a citizen of
the United States, when denied admission to public inns, railway
cars and theaters, on account of his race or color, in a condition
of involuntary servitude? If he is, then he is under the immediate
protection of the General Government, by virtue of the 13th
Amendment; and the Civil Rights Act is clearly constitutional.

     If excluded from one inn, he may be from all; if from one car,
why not from all? The man who depends for the preservation of his
privileges upon a conductor, instead of the Constitution, is in a
condition of involuntary servitude. He who depends for his rights
-- not upon the laws of the land, but upon a landlord, is in a
condition of involuntary servitude.



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                                9

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     The framers of the 13th Amendment knew that the negro would be
persecuted on account of his race and color -- knew that many of
the States could not be trusted to protect the rights of the
colored man; and for that reason, the General Government was
clothed with power to protect the colored people from all forms of
slavery and involuntary servitude.

     Of what use are the declarations in the Constitution that
slavery and involuntary servitude shall not exist, and that all
persons born or naturalized in the United States shall be citizens
-- not only of the United States, but of the States in which they
reside -- if, behind these declarations, there is no power to act
-- no duty for the General Government to discharge?

     Notwithstanding the 13th Amendment had been adopted --
notwithstanding slavery and involuntary servitude had been legally
destroyed -- it was found that the negro was still the helpless
victim of the white man. Another amendment was needed; and all the
justices of the Supreme Court have told us why the 14th Amendment
was adopted. justice Miller, speaking for the entire court, tells
us that:

          "In the struggle of the civil war, slavery perished, and
     perished as a necessity of the bitterness and force of the
     conflict."

     That:

          "When the armies of freedom found themselves on the soil
     of slavery, they could do nothing else than free the victims
     whose enforced servitude was the foundation of the war."

     He also admits that:

          "When hard pressed in the contest, the colored men (for
     they proved themselves men in that terrible crisis) offered
     their services, and were accepted, by thousands, to aid in
     suppressing the unlawful rebellion."

     He also informs us that;

          Notwithstanding the fact that the Southern States had
     formerly recognized the abolition of slavery, the condition of
     the slave, without further protection of the Federal
     Government, was almost as bad as it had been before."

     And he declares that:

          "The Southern States imposed upon the colored race
     onerous disabilities and burdens -- curtailed their rights in
     the pursuit of liberty and property, to such an extent that
     their freedom was of little value, while the colored people
     had lost the protection which they had received from their
     former owners from motives of interest."

     And that:



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               10

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

          "The colored people in some States were forbidden to
     appear in the towns in any other character than that of menial
     servants -- that they were required to reside on the soil
     without the right to purchase or own it -- that they were
     excluded from many occupations of gain and profit -- that they
     were not permitted to give testimony in the courts where white
     men were on trial -- and it was said that their lives were at
     the mercy of bad men, either because laws for their protection
     were insufficient, or were not enforced."

     We are informed by the Supreme Court that, "under these
circumstances," the proposition for the 14th Amendment was passed
through Congress, and that Congress declined to treat as restored
to full participation in the Government of the Union, the States
which had been in insurrection, until they ratified that article by
a formal vote of their legislative bodies.

     Thus it will be seen that the rebel States were restored to
the Union by adopting the 14th Amendment. In order to become equal
members of the Federal Union, these States solemnly agreed to carry
out the provisions of that amendment.

     The 14th Amendment provides that:

          "All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
     and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
     United States, and of the State wherein they reside."

     That is affirmative in its character. That affirmation imposes
the obligation upon the General Government to protect its citizens
everywhere. That affirmation clothes the Federal Government with
power to protect its citizens. Under that clause, the Federal arm
can reach to the boundary of the Republic, for the purpose of
protecting the weakest citizen from the tyranny of citizens or
States. That clause is a contract between the Government and every
man -- a contract wherein the citizen promises allegiance, and the
nation promises protection.

     By this clause, the Federal Government adopted all the
citizens of all the States and Territories, including the District
of Columbia, and placed them under the shield of the Constitution
-- made each one a ward of the Republic.

     Under this contract, the Government is under direct obligation
to the citizen. The Government cannot shirk its responsibility by
leaving a citizen to be protected in his rights, as a citizen of
the United States, by a State. The obligation of protection is
direct. The obligation on the part of the citizen to the Government
is direct. The citizen cannot be untrue to the Government because
his State is. The action of the State under the 14th Amendment is
no excuse for the citizen. He must be true to the Government. In
war, the Government has a right to his service. In peace, he has
the right to be protected.

     if the citizen must depend upon the State, then he owes the
first allegiance to that government or power that is under
obligation to protect him. Then, if a State secedes from the Union,
the citizen should go with the State -- should go with the power 
that protects.
                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               11

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     That is not my doctrine. My doctrine is this: The first duty
of the General Government is to protect each citizen. The first
duty of each citizen is to be true -- not to his State, but to the
Republic.

     This clause of the 14th Amendment made us all citizens of the
United States -- all children of the Republic. Under this decision,
the Republic refuses to acknowledge her children. Under this
decision of the Supreme Court, they are left upon the doorsteps of
the States. Citizens are changed to foundlings.

     If the 14th Amendment created citizens of the United States,
the power that created must define the rights of the citizens thus
created, and must provide a remedy where such rights an infringed.
The Federal Government speaks through its representatives --
through Congress; and Congress, by the Civil Rights Act, defined
some of the rights, privileges and immunities of a citizen of the
United States -- and Congress provided a remedy when such rights
and privileges were invaded, and gave jurisdiction to the Federal
courts.

     No State, or the department of any State, can authoritatively
define the rights, privileges and immunities of a citizen of the
United States. These rights and immunities must be defined by the
United States, and when so defined, they cannot be abridged by
State authority.

     In the case of Bartemeyer vs. Iowa, 18 Wall., p. 140, Justice
Field, in a concurring opinion, speaking of the 14th Amendment,
says:

          "It grew out of the feeling that a nation which had been
     maintained by such costly sacrifices was, after all,
     worthless, if a citizen could not be protected in all his
     fundamental rights, everywhere -- North and South, East and
     West -- throughout the limits of the Republic. The amendment
     was not, as held in the opinion of the majority, primarily
     intended to confer citizenship on the negro race. It had a
     much broader purpose. It was intended to justify legislation
     extending the protection of the National Government over the
     common rights of all citizens of the United States, and thus
     obviate objection to the legislation adopted for the
     protection of the emancipated race. It was intended to make it
     possible for all persons -- which necessarily included those
     of every race and color -- to live in peace and security
     wherever the jurisdiction of the nation reached. It therefore
     recognized, if it did not create, a national citizenship. This
     national citizenship is primary and not secondary."

     I cannot refrain from calling attention to the splendor and
nobility of the truths expressed by justice Field in this opinion.

     So, justice Field, in his dissenting opinion in what are known
as The Slaughter-House Cases, found in 16 Wallace, P. 95, still
speaking of the 14th Amendment, says:




                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               12

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

          It recognizes in express terms -- if it does not create 
     -- citizens of the United States, and it makes their
     citizenship dependent upon the place of their birth or the
     fact of their adoption, and not upon the constitution or laws
     of any State, or the condition of their ancestry. A citizen of
     a State is now only a citizen of the United States residing in
     that State. The fundamental rights, privileges and immunities
     which belong to him as a free man and a free citizen of the
     United States, are not dependent upon the citizenship of any
     State. * * *

          "They do not derive their existence from its legislation,
     and cannot be destroyed by its power."

     What are "the fundamental rights, privileges and immunities"
which belong to a free man? Certainly the rights of all citizens of
the United States are equal. Their immunities and privileges must
be the same. He who makes a discrimination between citizens on
account of color, violates the Constitution of the United States.

     Have all citizens the same right to travel on the highways of
the country? Have they all the same right to ride upon the railways
created by State authority? A railway is an improved highway. It
was only by holding that it was an improved highway that counties
and States aided in their construction. It has been decided, over
and over again, that a railway is an improved highway. A railway
corporation is the creation of a State -- an agent of the State. It
is under the control of the State -- and upon what principle can a
citizen be prevented from using the highways of a State on an
equality with all other citizens?

     These are all rights and immunities guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States.

     Now, the question is -- and it is the only question -- can
these rights and immunities, thus guaranteed and thus confirmed, be
protected by the General Government?

     In the case of The U.S. vs. Reese, el al, 92 U.S., P. 207, the
Supreme Court decided, the opinion having been delivered by Chief-
justice Waite, as follows:

          "Rights and immunities created by, and dependent upon,
     the Constitution of the United States can be protected by
     Congress. The form and the manner of the protection may be
     such as Congress in the legitimate exercise of its legislative
     discretion shall provide. This may be varied to meet the
     necessities of the particular right to be protected."

     This decision was acquiesced in by justices Strong, Bradley,
Swayne, Davis, Miller and Field. Dissenting opinions were filed by
justices Clifford and Hunt, but neither dissented from the
proposition that: 

          "Rights and immunities created by or dependent upon the
     Constitution of the United States can be protected by
     Congress," and that the form and manner of the protection may
     be such, as Congress in the exercise of its legitimate
     discretion shall provide."
                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               13

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     So, in the same case, I find this language:

          "It follows that the Amendment" -- meaning the 15th --
     "has invested the citizens of the United States with a new
     constitutional right, which is within the protecting power of
     Congress. This, under the express provisions of the second
     section of the Amendment, Congress may enforce by appropriate
     legislation."

     If the 15th Amendment invested the citizens of the United
States with a new constitutional right -- that is, the right to
vote -- and if for that reason that right is within the protecting
power of Congress, then I ask, if the 14th Amendment made certain
persons citizens of the United States, did such citizenship become
a constitutional right? And is such citizenship within the
protecting power of Congress? Does citizenship mean anything except
certain "rights, privileges and immunities"?

     Is it not an invasion of citizenship to invade the immunities
or privileges or rights belonging to a citizen? Are not, then, all
the immunities and privileges and rights under the protecting power
of Congress?

     The 13th Amendment found the negro a slave, and made him a
free man. That gave to him a new constitutional right, and
according to the Supreme Court, that right is within the protecting
power of Congress.

     What rights are within the protecting power of Congress? All
the rights belonging to a free man.

     The 14th Amendment made the negro a citizen. What then is
under the protecting power of Congress? All the rights, privileges
and immunities belonging to him as a citizen.

     So, in the case of Tennessee vs. Davis, 100 U.S., 263, the
Supreme Court, held that:

          The United States is a government whose authority extends
     over he whole territory of the Union, acting upon all the
     States, and upon all the people of all the States.

          "No State can exclude the Federal Government from the
     exercise of any authority conferred upon it by the
     Constitution, or withhold from it for a moment the cognizance
     of any subject which the Constitution has committed to it."

     This opinion was given by justice Strong, and acquiesced in by
Chief-justice Waite, justices Miller, Swayne, Bradley and Harlan.
 
     So in the case of Pensacola Tel. Co. vs. Western Union Tel.
Co., 96 U.S., p. 10, the opinion having been delivered by Chief-
justice Waite, I find this:

          "The Government of the United States, within the scope of
     its power, operates upon every foot of territory under its
     jurisdiction. It legislates for the whole Nation, and is not
     embarrassed by State lines."

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               14

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     This was acquiesced in by justices Clifford, Strong, Bradley,
Swayne and Miller.

     So we are told by the entire Supreme Court in the case of
Tiernan vs. Rynker, 102 U.S., 126, that:

          "When the subject to which the power applies is national
     in its character, or of such a nature as to admit of
     uniformity of regulation, the power is exclusive of State
     authority."

     Surely the question of citizenship is "national in its
character." Surely the question as to what are the rights,
privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States is
"national" in its character.

     Unless the declarations and definitions, the patriotic
paragraphs, and the legal principles made, given, uttered and
defined by the Supreme Court are but a judicial jugglery of words,
the Civil Rights Act is upheld by the intent, spirit and language
of the 14th Amendment.

     It was found that the 13th Amendment did not protect the
negro. Then the 14th was adopted. Still the colored citizen was
trodden under foot. Then the 15th was adopted. The 13th made him
free, and, in my judgment, made him a citizen, and clothed him with
all the rights of a citizen. That was denied, and then the 14th
declared that he was a citizen. In my judgment, that gave him the
right to vote. But that was denied -- then the 15th was adopted,
declaring that his right to vote should never be denied.

     The 13th Amendment made all free. It broke the chains, pulled
up the whipping-posts, overturned the auction-blocks, gave the
colored mother her child, put the shield of the Constitution over
the cradle, destroyed all forms of involuntary servitude, and in
the azure heaven of our flag it put the Northern Star.

     The 14th Amendment made us all citizens. It is a contract
between the Republic and each individual -- a contract by which the
Nation agrees to protect the citizen, and the citizen agrees to
defend the Nation. This amendment placed the crown of sovereignty
on every brow.

     The 15th Amendment secured the citizen in his right to vote,
in his right to make and execute the laws, and put these rights
above the power of any State. This amendment placed the ballot --
the scepter of authority -- in every sovereign hand.

     We are told by the Supreme Court, in the case under
discussion, that:

          "We must not forget that the province and scope of the
     13th and 14th Amendments are different; "that the 13th
     Amendment "simply abolished slavery," and that the 14th
     Amendment "prohibited the States from abridging the privileges
     and immunities of citizens of the United States; from
     depriving them of life, liberty or property, without due
     process of law; and from denying to any the equal protection
     of the laws."
                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               15

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     We are told that:

          "The amendments are different, and the powers of Congress
     under them are different. What Congress has power to do under
     one it may not have power to do under the other." That "under
     the 13th Amendment it has only to do with slavery and its
     incidents; "but that "under the 14th Amendment it has power to
     counteract and render nugatory all State laws or proceedings
     which have the effect to abridge any of the privileges or
     immunities of the citizens of the United States, or to deprive
     them of life, liberty or property, without due process of law,
     or to deny to any of them the equal protection of the laws."

     Did not Congress have that power under the 13th Amendment?
Could the States, in spite of the 13th Amendment, deprive free men
of life or property without due process of law? Does the Supreme
Court wish to be understood, that until the 14th Amendment was
adopted the States had the right to rob and kill free men? Yet, in
its effort to narrow and belittle the 13th Amendment, it has been
driven to this absurdity. Did not Congress, under the 13th
Amendment, have power to destroy slavery and involuntary servitude?
Did not Congress, under that amendment, have the power to protect
the lives, liberty and property of free men? And did not Congress
have the power "to render nugatory all State laws and proceedings
under which free men were to be deprived of life, liberty or
property, without due process of law"?

     If Congress was not clothed with such power by the 13th
Amendment, what was the object of that amendment? Was that
amendment a mere opinion, or a prophecy, or the expression of a
hope?

     The 14th Amendment provides that:

          "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
     abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
     States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
     liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to
     any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its
     laws."

     We are told by the Supreme Court that Congress has no right to
enforce the 14th Amendment by direct legislation, but that the
legislation under that amendment can only be of a "corrective"
character -- such as may be necessary or proper for counteracting
and redressing the effect of unconstitutional laws passed by the
States. In other words, that Congress has no duty to perform,
except to counteract the effect of unconstitutional laws by
corrective legislation.

     The Supreme Court has also decided, in the present case, that
Congress has no right to legislate for the purpose of enforcing
these clauses until the States shall have taken action. What action
can the State take? If a State passes laws contrary to these
provisions or clauses, they are void. If a State passes laws in
conformity to these provisions, certainly Congress is not called on
to legislate. Under what circumstances, then, can Congress be 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               16

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

called upon to act by way of "corrective" legislation, as to these
particular clauses? What can Congress do? Suppose the State passes
no law upon the subject, but allows citizens of the State --
managers of railways, and keepers of public inns, to discriminate
between their passengers and guests on account of race or color --
what then?

     Again, what is the difference between a State that has no law
on the subject, and a State that has passed an unconstitutional
law? In other words, what is the difference between no law and a
void law? If the "corrective" legislation of Congress is not needed
where the State has passed an unconstitutional law, is it needed
where the State has passed no law? What is there in either case to
correct? Surely it requires no particular legislation on the part
of Congress to kill a law that never had life.

     The States are prohibited by the Constitution from making any
regulations of foreign commerce. Consequently, all regulations made
by the States are null and void, no matter what the motive of the
States may have been, and it requires no law of Congress to annul
such laws or regulations. This was decided by the Supreme Court of
the United States, long ago, in what are known as The License
Cases. The opinion may be found in the 5th of Howard, 583.

          "The nullity of any act inconsistent with the
     Constitution, is produced by the declaration that the
     Constitution is supreme."

     This was decided by the Supreme Court, the opinion having been
delivered by Chief justice Marshall, in the case of Gibbons vs.
Ogden, 9 Wheat, 210.

     The same doctrine was held in the case of Henderson et al, vs.
Mayor of New York, el al, 92 U.S. 272 -- the opinion of the Court
being delivered by justice Miller.

     So it was held in the case of The Board of Liquidation vs.
McComb -- 2 Otto, 541 --

          "That an unconstitutional law will be treated by the
     courts as null and void" --

citing Osborn vs. The Bank of the United States, 9 Wheaton, 859,
and Davis vs. Gray, 16 Wallace, 220.

     Now, if the legislation of Congress must be "corrective," then
I ask, corrective of what? Certainly not of unconstitutional and
void laws. That which is void, cannot be corrected. That which is
unconstitutional is not the subject of correction. Congress either
has the right to legislate directly, or not at all; because
indirect or corrective legislation can apply only, according to the
Supreme Court, to unconstitutional and void laws that have been
passed by a State; and as such laws cannot be "corrected," the
doctrine of "corrective legislation" dies an extremely natural
death.




                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               17

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     A State can do one of three things: 1. It can pass an
unconstitutional law; 2. It can pass a constitutional law; 3. It
can fail to pass any law. The unconstitutional law, being void,
cannot be corrected. The constitutional law does not need
correction. And where no law has been passed, correction is
impossible.

     The Supreme Court insists that Congress can not take action
until the State does. A State that fails to pass any law on the
subject, has not taken action. This leaves the person whose
immunities and privileges have been invaded, with no redress except
such as he may find in the State Courts in a suit at law; and if
the State Court takes the same view that is apparently taken by the
Supreme Court in this case, -- namely, that it is a " social
question," one not to be regulated by law, and not covered in any
way by the Constitution -- then, discrimination can be made against
citizens by landlords and railway conductors, and they are left
absolutely without remedy.

     The Supreme Court asks, in this decision,

          "Can the act of a mere individual -- the owner of the
     inn, or public conveyance, or place of amusement, refusing the
     accommodation, be justly regarded as imposing any badge of
     slavery or servitude upon the applicant, or only as inflicting
     an ordinary civil injury properly cognizable by the laws of
     the State, and presumably subject to redress by those laws,
     until the contrary appears?"

     How is "the contrary to appear"? Suppose a person denied equal
privileges upon the railway on account of race and color, brings
suit and is defeated? And suppose the highest tribunal of the State
holds that the question is of a "social" character -- what then?
If, to use the language of the Supreme Court, it is "an ordinary
civil injury, imposing no badge of slavery or servitude," then, no
Federal question is involved.

     Why did not the Supreme Court tell us what may be done when
"the contrary appears"? Nothing is clearer than the intention of
the Supreme Court in this case -- and that is, to decide that
denying to a man equal accommodations at public inns on account of
race or color, is not an abridgment of a privilege or immunity of
a citizen of the United States, and that such person, so denied, is
not in a condition of involuntary servitude, or denied the equal
protection of the laws. In other words -- that it is a "social
question."

     I have been told by one who heard the decision when it was
read from the bench, that the following phrase was in the opinion:

          "There are certain physiological differences of race that
     cannot be ignored."

     That phrase is a lamp, in the light of which the whole
decision should be read.




                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               18

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     Suppose that in one of the Southern States, the negroes being
in a decided majority and having entire control, had drawn the
color line, had insisted that:

          "There were certain physiological differences between the
     races that could not be ignored,"

and had refused to allow white people to enter their hotels, to
ride in the best cars, or to occupy the aristocratic portion of a
theater; and suppose that a white man, thrust from the hotels,
denied the entrance to cars, had brought his suit in the Federal
Court. Does any one believe that the Supreme Court would have
intimated to that man that "there is only a social question
involved, -- a question with which the Constitution and laws have
nothing to do, and that he must depend for his remedy upon the
authors of the injury"? Would a white man, under such
circumstances, feel that he was in a condition of involuntary
servitude? Would he feel that he was treated like an underling,
like a menial, like a serf? Would he feel that he was under the
protection of the laws, shielded like other men by the
Constitution? Of course, the argument of color is just as strong on
one side as on the other. The white man says to the black, "You are
not my equal because you are black;" and the black man can with the
same propriety, reply, "You are not my equal because you are
white," The difference is just as great in the one case as in the
other. The pretext that this question involves, in the remotest
degree, a social question, is cruel, shallow, and absurd.

     The Supreme Court, some time ago, held that the 4th Section of
the Civil Rights Act was constitutional. That section declares
that:

          "No citizen possessing all other qualifications which are
     or may be prescribed by law, shall be disqualified for service
     as grand or petit juror in any court of the United States or
     of any State, on account of color or previous condition of
     servitude."

     It also provides that:

          "If any officer or other person charged with any duty in
     the selection or summoning of jurors, shall exclude, or fail
     to summon, any citizen in the case aforesaid, he shall, on
     conviction, be guilty of misdemeanor and be fined not more
     than five hundred dollars."

     In the case known as Ex-parte vs. Virginia -- found in 100
U.S. 339 -- it was held that an indictment against a State officer,
nuder this section, for excluding persons of color from the jury,
could be sustained. Now, let it be remembered, there was no law of
the State of Virginia, by virtue of which a man was disqualified
from sitting on the jury by reason of race or color. The officer
did exclude, and did fail to summon, a citizen on account of race
or color or previous condition of servitude. And the Supreme Court
held:




                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               19

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

          "That whether the Statute-book of the State actually
     laiddown any such rule of disqualification or not, the State,
     through its officer, enforced such rule; and that it was
     against such State action, through its officers and agents,
     that the last clause of the section was directed."

     The Court further held that:

          "This aspect of the law was deemed sufficient to divest
     it of any unconstitutional character."

     In other words, the Supreme Court held that the officer was an
agent of the State, although acting contrary to the statute of the
State; and that, consequently, such officer, acting outside of law,
was amenable to the Civil Rights Act, under the 14th Amendment,
that referred only to States. The question arises: Is a State
responsible for the action of its agent when acting contrary to
law? In other words: Is the principal bound by the acts of his
agent, that act not being within the scope of his authority? Is a
State liable -- or is the Government liable -- for the act of any
officer, that act not being authorized by law?

     It has been decided a thousand times, that a State is not
liable for the torts and trespasses of its officers. How then can
the agent, acting outside of his authority, be prosecuted under a
law deriving its entire validity from a constitutional amendment
applying only to States? Does an officer, by acting contrary to
State law, become so like a State that the word State, used in the
Constitution, includes him?

     So it was held in the case of Neal vs. Delaware, -- 103 U.S.,
307, -- that an officer acting contrary to the laws of the State --
in defiance of those laws -- would be amenable to the Civil Rights
Act, passed under an amendment to the Constitution now held
applicable only to States.

     It is admitted, and expressly decided in the case of The U.S.
vs. Reese et al, (already quoted) that when the wrongful refusal at
an election is because of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude, Congress can interfere and provide for the punishment of
any individual guilty of such refusal, no matter whether such
individual acted under or against the authority of the State.

     With this statement I most heartily agree. I agree that:

          "When the wrongful refusal is because of race, color, or
     previous condition of servitude, Congress can interfere and
     provide for the punishment of any individual guilty of such
     refusal."

     That is the key that unlocks the whole question. Congress has
power -- full, complete, and ample, -- to protect all citizens from
unjust discrimination, and from being deprived of equal privileges
on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. And
this language is just as applicable to the 13th and 14th, as to the
15th Amendment. If a citizen is denied the accommodations of a
public inn, or a seat in a railway car, on account of race or 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               20

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

color, or deprived of liberty on account of race or color, the
Constitution has been violated, and the citizen thus discriminated
against or thus deprived of liberty, is entitled to redress in a
Federal Court.

     It is held by the Supreme Court that the word "State" does not
apply to the "people" of the State -- that it applies only to the
agents of the people of the State. And yet, the word "State," as
used in the Constitution, has been held to include not only the
persons in office, but the people who elected them -- not only the
agents, but the principals. In the Constitution it is provided that
"no State shall coin money; and no State shall emit bills of
credit." According to this decision, any person in any State,
unless prevented by State authority, has the right to coin money
and to emit bills of credit, and Congress has no power to legislate
upon the subject -- provided he does not counterfeit any of the
coins or current money of the United States. Congress would have to
deal -- not with the individuals, but with the State; and unless
the State had passed some act allowing persons to coin money, or
emit bills of credit, Congress could do nothing. Yet, long ago,
Congress passed a statute preventing any person in any State from
coining money. No matter if a citizen should coin it of pure gold,
of the requisite fineness and weight, and not in the likeness of
United States coins, he would be a criminal. We have a silver
dollar, coined by the Government, worth eighty-five cents; and yet,
if any person, in any State, should coin what he called a dollar,
not like our money, but with a dollar's worth of silver in it, he
would be guilty of a crime.

     It may be said that the Constitution provides that Congress
shall have power to coin money, and provide for the punishment of
counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United
States; in other words, that the Constitution gives power to
Congress to coin money and denies it to the States, not only, but
gives Congress the power to legislate against counterfeiting. So,
in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, power is given to Congress,
and power is denied to the States, not only, but Congress is
expressly authorized to enforce the amendments by appropriate
legislation. Certainly the power is as broad in the one case as in
the other; and in both cases, individuals can be reached as well as
States.

     So the Constitution provides that:

          "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the
     several States."

     Under this clause Congress deals directly with individuals.
The States are not engaged in commerce, but the people are; and
Congress makes rules and regulations for the government of the
people so engaged.

     The Constitution also provides that:

          "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with the
     Indian tribes."



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               21

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     It was held in the case of The United States vs. Holliday, 3
Wall., 407, that:

          "Commerce with the Indian tribes means commerce with the
     individuals composing those tribes."

     And under this clause it has been further decided that
Congress has the power to regulate commerce not only between white
people and Indian tribes, but between Indian tribes; and not only
that, but between individual Indians. Worcester vs. The State, 6
Pet., 575; The United States vs. 43 Gallons, 93 U.S., 188; The
United States vs: Shawmux, 2 Saw., 304.

     Now, if the word "tribe" includes individual Indians, may not
the word "State" include citizens?

     In this decision it is admitted by the Supreme Court that
where a subject is submitted to the general legislative power of
Congress, then Congress has plenary powers of legislation over the
whole subject. Let us apply these words to the 13th Amendment. In
this very decision I find that the 13th Amendment:

          "By its own unaided force and effect, abolished slavery
     and established universal freedom."

     The Court admits that:

          "Legislation may be necessary and proper to meet all the
     various cases and circumstances to be affected by it, and to
     prescribe proper modes of redress for its violation in letter
     or spirit."

     The Court further admits:

          "And such legislation may be primary and direct in its
     character."

     And then gives the reason:

          For the amendment is not a mere prohibition of State laws
     establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration
     that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any
     part of the United States."

     I now ask, has that subject -- that is to say, Liberty,-- been
submitted to the general legislative power of Congress? The 13th
Amendment provides that Congress shall have power to enforce that
amendment by appropriate legislation.

     In construing the 13th and 14th Amendments and the Civil
Rights Act, it seems to me that the Supreme Court has forgotten the
principle of construction that has been laid down so often by
courts, and that is this: that in construing statutes, courts may
look to the history and condition of the country as circumstances
from which to gather the intention of the Legislature. So it seems
to me that the Court failed to remember the rule laid down by Story
in the case of Prigg vs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16 Pet.,


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               22

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

611, a rule laid down in the interest of slavery -- laid down for
the purpose of depriving human beings of their liberty:

          Perhaps the safest rule of interpretation, after all,
     will be found to be to look to the nature and objects of the
     particular powers, duties and rights with all the lights and
     aids of contemporary history, and to give to the words of each
     just such operation and force consistent with their legitimate
     meaning, as may fairly secure and attain the ends proposed."

     It must be admitted that certain rights were conferred by the
13th Amendment. Surely certain rights were conferred by the 14th
Amendment; and these rights should be protected and upheld by the
Federal Government. And it was held in the case last cited, that:

          "If by one mode of interpretation the right must become
     shadowy and unsubstantial, and without any remedial power
     adequate to the end, and by another mode it will attain its
     just end and secure its manifest purpose -- it would seem,
     upon principles of reasoning absolutely irresistible, that the
     latter ought to prevail. No court of justice can be authorized
     so as to construe any clauses of the Constitution as to defeat
     its obvious ends, when another construction, equally accordant
     with the words and sense thereof, will enforce and protect
     them."

     In the present case, the Supreme Court holds, that Congress
can not legislate upon this subject until the State has passed some
law contrary to the Constitution.

     I call attention in reply to this, to the case of Hall vs. De
Cuir, 95 U.S., 486. The State of Louisiana, in 1869, acting in the
spirit of these amendments to the Constitution, passed a law
requiring that all persons engaged within that State in the
business of common carriers of passengers, should make no
discrimination on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude. Under this law, Mrs. De Cuir, a colored woman, took
passage on a steamer, buying a ticket from New Orleans to Hermitage
-- the entire trip being within the limits of the State. The
captain of the boat refused to give her equal accommodations with
other passengers -- the refusal being on the ground of her color.
She commenced suit against the captain in the State Court of
Louisiana, and recovered judgment for one thousand dollars. The
defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of that State, and the
judgment of the lower court was sustained. Thereupon, the captain
died, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of the United
States by his administrator, on the ground that a Federal question
was involved.

     You will see that this was a case where the State had acted,
and had acted exactly in accordance with the constitutional
amendments, and had by law provided that the privileges and
immunities of the citizen of the United States -- residing in the
State of Louisiana -- should not be abridged, and that no
distinction should be made on account of race or color. But in that
case the Supreme Court of the United States solemnly decided that
the legislation of the State was void -- that the State of 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               23

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

Louisiana had no right to interfere -- no right, by law, to protect
a citizen of the United States from being discriminated against
under such circumstances.

     You will remember that the plaintiff, Mrs. De Cuir, was to be
carried from New Orleans to Hermitage, and that both places were
within the State of Louisiana. Notwithstanding this, the Supreme
Court held:

          "That if the public good required such legislation, it
     must come from Congress and not from the State."

     What reason do you suppose was given? It was this The
Constitution gives to Congress power to regulate commerce between
the States; and it appeared from the evidence given in that case,
that the boat plied between the ports of New Orleans and Vicksburg.
Consequently, it was engaged in interstate commerce. Therefore, it
was under the protection of Congress; and being under the
protection of Congress, the State had no authority to protect its
citizens by a law in perfect harmony with the Constitution of the
United States, while such citizens were within the limits of
Louisiana. The Supreme Court scorns the protection of a State!

     In the case recently decided, and about which we are talking
to-night, the Supreme Court decides exactly the other way. It
decides that if the public good requires such legislation, it must
come from the States, and not from Congress; that Congress cannot
act until the State has acted, and until the State has acted wrong,
and that Congress can then only act for the purpose of "correcting"
such State action. The decision in Hall vs. De Cuir was rendered in
1877. The Civil Rights Act was then in force, and applied to all
persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, and provided
expressly that:

          "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States
     shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the
     accommodations, privileges, and facilities of inns, public
     conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of
     public amusement, without regard to race or color."

     And yet the Supreme Court said:

          "No carrier of passengers can conduct his business with
     satisfaction to himself, or comfort to those employing him, if
     on one side of a State line his passengers, both white and
     colored, must be permitted to occupy the same cabin, and on
     the other to be kept separate."

     What right had the other State to pass a law that passengers
should be kept separate, on account of race or color? How could
such a law have been constitutional? The Civil Rights Act applied
to all States, and to both sides of the lines between all States,
and produced absolute uniformity -- and did not put the captain to
the trouble of dividing his passengers. The Court further said:

          "Uniformity in the regulations by which the carrier is to
     be governed from one end to the other of his route, is a
     necessity in his business."

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               24

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     The uniformity had been guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act,
and the statute of the State of Louisiana was in exact conformity
with the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. The Court also
said:

          "And to secure uniformity, Congress, which is untrammeled
     by state lines, has been invested with the exclusive power of
     determining what such regulations shall be."

     Yes, Congress has been invested with such power, and Congress
has used it in passing the Civil Rights Act -- and yet, under these
circumstances, the Court proceeds to imagine the difficulty that a
captain would have in dividing his passengers as he crosses a State
line, keeping them apart until he reaches the line of another
State, and then bringing them together, and so going on through the
process of dispersing and huddling, to the end of his unfortunate
route.

     It is held by the Supreme Court, that uniformity of duties is
essential to the carrier, and so essential, that Congress has
control of the whole matter. If uniformity is so desirable for the
carrier that Congress takes control, then uniformity as to the
rights of passengers is equally desirable; and under the 13th and
14th Amendments, Congress has the exclusive power to state what the
rights, privileges and immunities of passengers shall be. So that,
in 1877, the Supreme Court decided that the States could not
legislate; and in 1883, that Congress could not, unless the State
had. If Congress controls interstate commerce upon the navigable
waters, it also controls interstate commerce upon the railways. And
if Congress has exclusive jurisdiction in the one case, it has in
the other. And if it has exclusive jurisdiction, it does not have
to wait until States take action. If it does not have to wait until
States take action, then the Civil Rights Act, in so far as it
refers to the rights of passengers going from one State to another,
must be constitutional.

     It must be remembered, in this discussion, that the 8th
Section of, the Constitution conferred upon Congress the power:

          "To make all laws that may be necessary and proper for
     carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution
     in the Government of the United States."

     So the 2nd Section of the 13th Article provides:

          Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
     appropriate legislation."

     The same language is used in the 14th and 15th Amendments.

          "This clause does not limit -- it enlarges -- the powers
     vested in the General Government. It is an additional power --
     not a restriction on those already granted. It does not impair
     the right of the Legislature to exercise its best judgment in
     the selection of measures to carry into execution the
     constitutional powers of the Government. A sound construction
     of the Constitution must allow to the National Legislature
     that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers 

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               25

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable
     that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the
     manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be
     legitimate -- let it be within the scope of the Constitution,
     and all means which are appropriate -- which are plainly
     adapted to that end -- are constitutional."

     This is the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of
M'Cauley, vs. The State, 4 Wheaton, 316.

     Congress must possess the choice of means, and must be
empowered to use any means which are in fact conducive to the
exercise of a power granted by the Constitution." U.S. vs. Fisher,
2 Cranch, 358.

     Again:

          "The power of Congress to pass laws to enforce rights
     conferred by the Constitution is not limited to the express
     powers of legislation enumerated in the Constitution. The
     powers which are necessary and proper as means to carry into
     effect rights expressly given and duties expressly enjoined,
     are always implied. The end being given, the means to
     accomplish it are given also." Prigg vs. The Commonwealth, 16
     Peters, 539.

     This decision was delivered by justice Story, and is the same
one already referred to, in which liberty was taken from a human
being by judicial construction. It was held in that case that the
2nd Section of the 4th Article of the Constitution, to which I have
already called attention, contained "a positive and unqualified
recognition of the right" of the owner in a slave, unaffected by
any State law or regulation. If this is so, then I assert that the
13th Amendment "contains a positive and unqualified recognition of
the right" of every human being to liberty; that the 14th Amendment
"contains a positive and unqualified recognition of the right" to
citizenship; and that the 15th Amendment contains a positive and
unqualified recognition of the right" to vote.

     Justice Story held in that case that:

          "Under and by virtue of that section of the Constitution
     the owner of a slave was clothed with entire authority in
     every State in the nation to seize and recapture his slave."

     He also held that:

          In that sense, and to that extent, that clause of the
     Constitution might properly be said to execute itself, and to
     require no aid from legislation -- State or National."

     But," says justice Story:

          The clause of the Constitution does not stop there, but
     says that he, the slave, shall be delivered up on claim of the
     party to whom such service or labor may be due.



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               26

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     And he holds that:

          Under that clause of the section Congress became clothed
     with the appropriate authority to legislate for its
     enforcement."

     Now let us look at the 13th and 14th Amendments in the light
of that decision.

     First. Liberty and citizenship were given the colored people
by this amendment. And justice Story tells us that:

          The power of Congress to enforce rights conferred by the
     Constitution is not limited to the express powers of
     legislation enumerated in the Constitution, but the powers
     which are necessary to protect such rights are always
     implied."

     Language cannot be stronger; words cannot be clearer. But now
this decision has been reversed by the Supreme Court, and Congress
is left powerless to protect rights conferred by the Constitution.
It has been shorn of implied powers, It has duties to perform, and
no power to act. It has rights to protect, but cannot choose the
means. It is entangled in its own strength. It is a prisoner in the
bastille of judicial construction.

     Let us go further. justice Story tells us that:

          "The words 'but shall be given up on the claim of the
     person to whom such labor or service may be due,' clothes
     Congress with the appropriate authority to legislate for its
     enforcement."

     In the light of this remark, let us look at the 14th
Amendment:

          "All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
     and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
     United States and of the State wherein they reside."

     To which are added there words:

          "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
     abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
     States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
     liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to
     any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
     laws."

     Now, if the words: "But shall be delivered up on claim of the
party to whom such service or labor may be due," clothes Congress
with power to legislate upon the entire subject, then I ask if the
words in the 14th Amendment declaring that "no law shall be made by
any State, or enforced, which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; and that no State
shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws," does not clothe Congress with the 
power to legislate upon the entire subject?

                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               27

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     In the two cases there is only this difference: The first
decision was made in the interest of human slavery -- made to
protect property in man; and the second decision ought to have been
made for exactly the opposite purpose. Under the first decision,
Congress had the right to select the means -- but now that is
denied. And yet it was decided in M'Cauley vs. The State, 4
Wheaton, 316, that:

          "When the Government has a right to do an act, and has
     imposed on it the duty of performing an act then it must,
     according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the
     means."

     Again:

          "The Government has the right to employ freely every
     means not prohibited, for the fulfillment of its acknowledged
     duties."

     The Legal Tender Cases -- 12 Wallace, 457.


     It will thus be seen that Congress has the undoubted right to
make all laws necessary for the exercise of all the powers vested
in it by the Constitution. When the Constitution imposes a duty
upon Congress, it grants the necessary means. Congress certainly,
then, has the right to pass all necessary laws for the enforcement
of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Any legislation is
"appropriate" that is calculated to accomplish the end sought and
that is not repugnant to the Constitution. Within these limits
Congress has the sovereign power of choice. No better definition of
"appropriate legislation" has been given than that by the Supreme
Court of California, in the case of The People vs. Washington, 38
California, 658:

          Legislation which practically tends to facilitate the
     securing to all, through the aid of the judicial and executive
     departments of the Government, the full enjoyment of personal
     freedom, is appropriate."

     The Supreme Court despairingly asks:

          "If this legislation is appropriate for enforcing the
     prohibitions of the Amendment, it is difficult to see where it
     is to stop. Why may not Congress, with equal show of
     authority, enact a code of laws for the enforcement and
     vindication of all rights of life, liberty and property?

     My answer is: The legislation will stop when and where the
discriminations on account of race, color or previous condition of
servitude stop. Whenever an immunity or privilege of a citizen of
the United States is trodden down by the State, or by an
individual, under the circumstances mentioned in the Civil Rights
Act -- that is to say, on account of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude -- then the Federal Government must
interfere. The Government must defend the immunities and privileges
of its citizens. not only from State invasion, but from individual 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               28

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

invaders, when that invasion is based upon the distinction of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude. The Government has taken
upon itself that duty. This duty can be discharged by a law making
a uniform rule, obligatory not only upon States, but upon
individuals. All this will stop when the discriminations stop.

     After such examination of the authorities as I have been able
to make, I lay down the following propositions, namely:

     1. The sovereignty of a State extends only to that which
exists by its own authority.

     2. The powers of the General Government were not conferred by
the people of a single State; they were given by the people of the
United States; and the laws of the United States, in pursuance of
the Constitution, are supreme over the entire Republic.

     3. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of
each State.

     4. The United States is a Government whose authority extends
over the whole territory of the Union, acting upon all the States
and upon all the people of all the States.

     5. No State can exclude the Federal Government from the
exercise of any authority conferred upon it by the Constitution, or
withhold from it, for a moment, the cognizance of any subject which
that instrument has committed to it.

     6. It is the duty of Congress to enforce the Constitution, and
it has been clothed with power to make all laws necessary and
proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested by the
Constitution in the General Government.

     7. It is the duty of the Government to protect every citizen
of the United States in all his rights, everywhere, without regard
to race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and this the
Government has the right to do by direct legislation.

     8. Every citizen, when his privileges and immunities are
invaded by the legislature of a State, has the right of appeal from
such State to the Supreme Court of the nation.

     9. When a State fails to pass any law protecting a citizen
from discrimination on account of race or color, and fails, in
fact, to protect such citizen, then such citizen has the right to
find redress in the Federal Courts.

     10. Whenever, in the Constitution, a State is prohibited from
doing anything that in the nature of the thing can be done by any
citizen of that State, then the word "state" embraces and includes
all the people of a State.

     11. The 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude shall exist within the jurisdiction of the
United States.



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               29

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     This is not a mere negation -- it is a splendid affirmation.
The duty is imposed upon the General Government by that amendment
to see to it that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall
exist.

     It is a question absolutely within the power of the Federal
Government, and the Federal Government is clothed with power to
make all necessary laws to enforce that amendment against States
and persons.

     12. The 14th Amendment provides that all persons born or
naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States
wherein they reside. This is also an affirmation. It is not a
prohibition. The moment that amendment was adopted, it became the
duty of the United States to protect the citizens recognized or
created by that amendment. We are no longer citizens of the United
States because we are citizens of a State, but we are citizens of
the United States because we have been born or have been
naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States. It
therefore follows, that it is not only the right, but it is the
duty, of Congress, to pass all laws necessary for the protection of
citizens of the United States.

     13. Congress can not shirk this responsibility by leaving
citizens of the United States to the care and keeping of the
several States.

     The recent decision of the Supreme Court cuts, as with a
sword, the tie that binds the citizen to the nation. Under the old
Constitution, it was not certainly known who were citizens of the
United States. There were citizens of the States, and such citizens
looked to their several States for protection. The Federal
Government had no citizens. Patriotism did not rest on mutual
obligation. Under the 14th Amendment, we are all citizens of a
common country; and our first duty, our first obligation, our
highest allegiance, is not to the State in which we reside, but to
the Federal Government. The 14th Amendment tends to destroy State
prejudices and lays a foundation for national patriotism.

     14. All statutes -- all amendments to the Constitution -- in
derogation of natural rights, should be strictly construed.

     15. All statutes and amendments for the preservation of
natural rights should be liberally construed. Every court should,
by strict construction, narrow the scope of every law that
infringes upon any natural human right; and every court should, by
construction, give the broadest meaning to every statute or
constitutional provision passed or adopted for the preservation of
freedom.

     16. In construing the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, the
Supreme Court need not go back to decisions rendered in the days of
slavery -- when every statute was construed in favor of the
sovereignty of the State and the rights of the master. These
amendments utterly obliterated such decisions. The Supreme Court
should begin with the amendments. It need not look behind them. 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               30

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

They are a part of the fundamental organic law of the nation. They
were adopted to destroy the old statutes, to obliterate the
infamous clauses in the Constitution, and to lay a new foundation
for a new nation.

     17. Congress has the power to eradicate all forms and
incidents of slavery and involuntary servitude, by direct and
primary legislation binding upon States and individuals alike. And
when citizens are denied the exercise of common rights and
privileges -- when they are refused admittance to public inns and
railway cars, on an equality with white persons -- and when such
denial and refusal are based upon race and color, such citizens are
in a condition of involuntary servitude.

     The Supreme Court has failed to take into consideration the
intention of the framers of these amendments. It has failed to
comprehend the spirit of the age. It has under-valued the
accomplishment of the war. It has not grasped in all their height
and depth the great amendments to the Constitution and the real
object of government. To preserve liberty is the only use for
government. There is no other excuse for legislatures, or
presidents, or courts, for statutes or decisions. Liberty is not
simply a means -- it is an end. Take from our history, our
literature, our laws, our hearts -- that word, and we are naught
but molded clay. Liberty is the one priceless jewel. It includes
and holds and is the weal and wealth of life. Liberty is the soil
and light and rain -- it is the plant and bud and flower and fruit
-- and in that sacred word lie all the seeds of progress, love and
joy.

     This decision, in my judgment, is not worthy of the Court by
which it was delivered. It has given new life to the serpent of
State Sovereignty. It has breathed upon the dying embers of
ignorant hate. It has furnished food and drink, breath and blood,
to prejudices that were perishing of famine, and in the old case of
Civilization vs. Barbarism, it has given the defendant a new trial.

     From this decision, John M. Harlan had the breadth of brain,
the goodness of heart, and the loyalty to logic to dissent. By the
fortress of Liberty, one sentinel remains at his post. For moral
courage I have supreme respect, and I admire that intellectual
strength that breaks the cords and chains of prejudice and damned
custom as though they were but threads woven in a spider's loom.
This judge has associated his name with freedom, and he will be
remembered as long as men are free.

     We are told by the Supreme Court that:

          "Slavery cannot exist without law, any more than property
     and lands and goods can exist without law."

     I deny that property exists by virtue of law. I take exactly
the opposite ground. It was the fact that man had property in lands
and goods, that produced laws for the protection of such property.
The Supreme Court has mistaken an effect for a cause. Laws passed
for the protection of property, sprang from the possession and
ownership of the thing to be protected. When one man enslaves 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               31

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

another, it is a violation of all justice -- a subversion of the
foundation of all law. Statutes passed for the purpose of enabling
man to enslave his fellow-man, resulted from a conspiracy entered
into by the representatives of brute force. Nothing can be more
absurd than to call such a statute, born of such a conspiracy a
law. According to the idea of the Supreme Court, man never had
property until he had passed a law upon the subject. The first man
who gathered leaves upon which to sleep, did not own them, because
no law had been passed on the leaf subject. The first man who
gathered fruit -- the first man who fashioned a club with which to
defend himself from wild beasts, according to the Supreme Court,
had no property in these things, because no laws had been passed,
and no courts had published their decisions.

     So the defenders of monarchy have taken the ground that
societies were formed by contract -- as though at one time men all
lived apart, and came together by agreement and formed a
government. We might just as well say that the trees got into
groves by contract or conspiracy. Man is a social being. By living
together there grow out of the relation, certain regulations,
certain customs. These at last hardened into what we call law --
into what we call forms of government -- and people who wish to
defend the idea that we got everything from the king, say that our
fathers made a contract. Nothing can be more absurd. Men did not
agree upon a form of government and then come together; but being
together, they made rules for the regulation of conduct. Men did
not make some laws and then get some property to fit the laws, but
having property they made laws for its protection.

     It is hinted by the Supreme Court that this is in some way a
question of social equality. It is claimed that social equality
cannot be enforced by law. Nobody thinks it can. This is not a
question of social equality, but of equal rights. A colored citizen
has the same right to ride upon the cars -- to be fed and lodged at
public inns, and to visit theaters, that I have. Social equality is
not involved.

     The Federal soldiers who escaped from Libby and Andersonville,
and who in swamps, in storm, and darkness, were rescued and fed by
the slave, had no scruples about eating with a negro. They were
willing to sit beneath the same tree and eat with him the food he
brought. The white soldier was then willing to find rest and
slumber beneath the negro's roof. Charity has no color. It is
neither white nor black. justice and Patriotism are the same. Even
the Confederate soldier was willing to leave his wife and children
under the protection of a man whom he was fighting to enslave.

     Danger does not draw these nice distinctions as to race or
color. Hunger is not proud. Famine is exceedingly democratic in the
matter of food, In the moment of peril, prejudices perish. The man
fleeing for his life does not have the same ideas about social
questions as he who sits in the Capitol, wrapped in official robes.
Position is apt to be supercilious. Power is sometimes cruel.
Prosperity is often heartless.

     This cry about social equality is born of the spirit of caste
the most fiendish of all things. It is worse than slavery. Slavery 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               32

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

is at least justified by avarice -- by a desire to get something
for nothing -- by a desire to live in idleness upon the labor of
others -- but the spirit of caste is the offspring of natural
cruelty and meanness.

     Social relations depend upon almost an infinite number of
influences and considerations. We have our likes and dislikes. We
choose our companions. This is a natural right. You cannot force
into my house persons whom I do not want. But there is a difference
between a public house and a private house. The one is for the
public. The private house is for the family and those they may
invite. The landlord invites the entire public, and he must serve
those who come if they are fit to be received. A railway is public,
not private. It derives its powers and its rights from the State.
It takes private land for public purposes. It is incorporated for
the good of the public, and the public must be served. The railway,
the hotel, and the theater, have a right to make a distinction
between people of good and bad manners -- between the clean and the
unclean. There are white people who have no right to be in any
place except a bath-tub, and there are colored people in the same
condition. An unclean white man should not be allowed to force
himself into a hotel, or into a railway car -- neither should the
unclean colored. What I claim is, that in public places, no
distinction should be made on account of race or color. The bad
black man should be treated like the bad white man, and the good
black man like the good white man. Social equality is not contended
for -- neither between white and white, black and black, nor
between white and black.

     In all social relations we should have the utmost liberty --
but public duties should be discharged and public rights should be
recognized, without the slightest discrimination on account of race
or color. Riding in the same cars, stopping at the same inns,
sitting in the same theaters, no more involve a social question, or
social equality, than speaking the same language, reading the same
books, hearing the same music, traveling on the same highway,
eating the same food, breathing the same air, warming by the same
sun, shivering in the same cold, defending the same flag, loving
the same country, or living in the same world.

     And yet, thousands of people are in deadly fear about social
equality. They imagine that riding with colored people is dangerous
-- that the chance acquaintance may lead to marriage. They wish to
be protected from such consequences by law. They dare not trust
themselves. They appeal to the Supreme Court for assistance, and
wish to be barricaded by a constitutional amendment. They are
willing that colored women shall prepare their food -- that colored
waiters shall bring it to them -- willing to ride in the same cars
with the porters and to be shown to their seats in theaters by
colored ushers -- willing to be nursed in sickness by colored
servants. They see nothing dangerous -- nothing repugnant, in any
of these relations, -- but the idea of riding in the same car,
stopping at the same hotel, fills them with fear -- fear for the
future of our race. Such people can be described only in the
language of Walt Whitman. "They are the immutable, granitic
pudding-heads of the world."

 

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               33

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     Liberty is not a social question. Civil equality is not social
equality. We are equal only in rights. No two persons are of equal
weight, or height. There are no two leaves in all the forests of
the earth alike -- no two blades of grass -- no two grains of sand
-- no two hairs. No two any-things in the physical world are
precisely alike. Neither mental nor physical equality can be
created by law, but law recognizes the fact that all men have been
clothed with equal rights by Nature, the mother of us all.

     The man who hates the black man because he is black, has the
same spirit as he who hates the poor man because he is poor, It is
the spirit of caste. The proud useless despises the honest useful.
The parasite idleness scorns the great oak of labor on which it
feeds, and that lifts it to the light.

     I am the inferior of any man whose rights I trample under
foot. Men are not superior by reason of the accidents of race or
color. They are superior who have the best heart -- the best brain.
Superiority is born of honesty, of virtue, of charity, and above
all, of the love of liberty. The superior man is the providence of
the inferior. He is eyes for the blind, strength for the weak, and
a shield for the defenseless. He stands erect by bending above the
fallen. He rises by lifting others.

     In this country all rights must be preserved, all wrongs
redressed, through the ballot. The colored man has in his
possession, in his care, a part of the sovereign power of the
Republic. At the ballot-box he is the equal of judges and senators,
and presidents, and his vote, when counted, is the equal of any
other. He must use this sovereign power for his own protection, and
for the preservation of his children. The ballot is his sword and
shield. It is his political providence. It is the rock on which he
stands, the column against which he leans. He should vote for no
man who does not believe in equal rights for all -- in the same
privileges and immunities for all citizens, irrespective of race or
color.

     He should not be misled by party cries, or by vague promises
in political platforms. He should vote for the men, for the party,
that will protect him; for congressmen who believe in liberty, for
judges who worship justice -- whose brains are not tangled by
technicalities, and whose hearts are not petrified by precedents;
and for presidents who will protect the blackest citizen from the
tyranny of the whitest State. As you cannot trust the word of some
white people, and as some black people do not always tell the
truth, you must compel all candidates to put their principles in
black and white.

     Of one thing you can rest assured: The best white people are
your friends. The humane, the civilized, the just, the most
intelligent, the grandest, are on your side. The sympathies of the
noblest are with you. Your enemies are also the enemies of liberty,
of progress and of justice. The white men who make the white race
honorable believe in equal rights for you. The noblest living are,
the noblest dead were, your friends. I ask you to stand with your
friends.



                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               34

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     Do not hold the Republican party responsible for this
decision, unless the Republican party endorses it. Had the question
been submitted to that party, it would have been decided exactly
the other way -- at least a hundred to one. That party gave you the
13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. They were given in good faith.
These amendments put you on a constitutional and political equality
with white men. That they have been narrowed in their application
by the Supreme Court, is not the fault of the Republican party. Let
us wait and see what the Republican party will do. That party has
a strange history, and in that history is a mingling of cowardice
and courage. The army of progress always becomes fearful after
victory, and courageous after defeat. It has been the custom for
principle to apologize to prejudice. The Proclamation of
Emancipation gave liberty only to slaves beyond our lines -- those
beneath our flag were left to wear their chains. We said to the
Southern States: "Lay down your arms, and you shall keep your
slaves." We tried to buy peace at the expense of the negro. We
offered to sacrifice the manhood of the North, and the natural
rights of the colored man, upon the altar of the Union. The
rejection of that offer saved us from infamy. At one time we
refused to allow the loyal black man to come within our lines. We
would meet him at the outposts, receive his information, and drive
him back to chain and lash. The Government publicly proclaimed that
the war was waged to save the Union, with slavery. We were afraid
to claim that the negro was a man -- afraid to admit that he was
property -- and so we called him "contraband." We hesitated to
allow the negro to fight for his own freedom -- hesitated to let
him wear the uniform of the nation while he battled for the
supremacy of its flag.

     These are some of the inconsistencies of the past. In spite of
them we advanced. We were educated by events, and at last we
clearly saw that slavery was rebellion, that the "institution" had
borne its natural fruit -- civil war; that the entire country was
responsible for slavery, and that slavery was responsible for
rebellion. We declared that slavery should be extirpated from the
Republic. The great armies led by the greatest commander of the
modern world, shattered, crushed and demolished the Rebellion. The
North grew grand. The people became sublime. The three sacred
amendments were adopted. The Republic was free.

     Then came a period of hesitation, apology and fear. The
colored citizen was left to his fate. For years the Federal arm,
palsied by policy, was powerless to protect; and this period of
fear, of hesitation, of apology, of lack of confidence in the
right, has borne its natural fruit -- this decision of the Supreme
Court.

     But it is not for me to give you advice. Your conduct has been
above all praise. You have been as patient as the earth beneath, as
the stars above. You have been law-abiding and industrious. You
have not offensively asserted your rights, or offensively borne
your wrongs. You have been modest and forgiving. You have returned
good for evil. When I remember that the ancestors of my race were
in universities and colleges and common schools while you and your
fathers were on the auction-block, in the slave-pen, or in the
field beneath the cruel lash, in States where reading and writing 
were crimes, I am astonished at the progress you have made.

                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               35

                          CIVIL RIGHTS.

     All that I -- all that any reasonable man -- can ask is, that
you continue doing as you have done. Above all things -- educate
your children -- strive to make yourselves independent -- work for
homes -- work for yourselves -- and wherever it is possible become
the masters of yourselves.

     Nothing gives me more pleasure than to see your little
children with books under their arms, going and coming from school.

     it is very easy to see why colored people should hate us, but
why we should hate them is beyond my comprehension. They never sold
our wives. They never robbed our cradles. They never scarred our
backs. They never pursued us with bloodhounds. They never branded
our flesh.

     It has been said that it is hard to forgive a man to whom we
have done a great injury. I can conceive of no other reason why we
should hate the colored people. To us they are a standing reproach.
Their history is our shame. Their virtues seem to enrage some white
people -- their patience to provoke, and their forgiveness to
insult. Turn the tables -- change places -- and with what
fierceness, with what ferocity, with what insane and passionate
intensity we would hate them!

     The colored people do not ask for revenge -- they simply ask
for justice. They are willing to forget the past -- willing to hide
their scars -- anxious to bury the broken chains, and to forget the
miseries and hardships, the tears and agonies, of two hundred
years.

     The old issues are again upon us. Is this a Nation? Have all
citizens of the United States equal rights, without regard to race
or color? Is it the duty of the General Government to protect its
citizens? Can the Federal arm be palsied by the action or non-
action of a State?

     Another opportunity is given for the people of this country to
take sides. According to my belief, the supreme thing for every man
to do is to be absolutely true to himself. All consequences --
whether rewards or punishments, whether honor and power, or
disgrace and poverty, are as dreams undreamt. I have made my
choice. I have taken my stand. Where my brain and heart go, there
I will publicly and openly walk. Doing this, is my highest
conception of duty. Being allowed to do this, is liberty.

     If this is not now a free Government; if citizens cannot now
be protected, regardless of race or color; if the three sacred
amendments have been undermined by the Supreme Court -- we must
have another; and if that fails, then another; and we must neither
stop, nor pause, until the Constitution shall become a perfect
shield for every right, of every human being, beneath our flag.

                          ****     ****

    Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.

                          ****     ****


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               36
