OCR Text |
Show PRIVILEGES. Again last night the Xews had something some-thing to say about privileges and the Democrat. On Monday night the ' News discussed the question of privileges in a learned manner; that is, learned for the Newt. It asked this question : What dues the first section of the Fourteenth Four-teenth Amendment mean, when it says: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immuuUies of , citizens of the United States?" ' i After this, but not immediately, there i came the following : ; Before he tackles this question again he i should read up on the Constitution and con- suit the dictionary. Did he ever think that i marriage is a privilege, but that when con-i con-i summated there are rights accruing from it, ; and that the "Mormons" may bo perfectly ! consistent in claiming that to enter into plu-' ral marriage is a privilege, accruing from i compliance with certain conditions, and that ' when consummated there are rights growing ' out of and associated with it, justifying the argument in its favor both on the questions Iof privilege and of right? If not, let him ponder it in his immature brain and he may learn something : he needs to. What does the Fourteenth Amendment ! mean? We will endeavor to show, if j necessary, by citing the greatest living j authority on the Constitution Judge j Thomas M. Cooley. In the fourth edition f of "Story on the Constitution," which is Cooley'8edition,Sec. 1934,JudgeCooley,in j commenting on the particular clause of I the Fourteenth Amendment referred to I by the Xews, says : The States are also forbidden to "make or j enforce any law whioh shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the ) United States." What are the privileges and j immunities of citizens of the United States j has been somewhat considered in another f place; and an examination of the judicial 1 -, decisions there referred to will illustrate the diffioulty to bo encountered in any attempt . at a satisfactory enumeration. The Supreme Court has felt the full force of this difficulty, , k and has declared that it would not describe j j and define them in a general classification; i s preferring to deal with each case on a con- J sideration of its particular facts. These I things are, beyond question, among the J privileges and immunities of citizens of the States: to be protected in life and I ' liberty by the law; to acquire, possess, and enjoy property; to contract and be contracted with under general lp.ws; to be exempted from ; ' inequality in the burdens of government; f to establish family relations under the regu- t lutipns of Vie. law; -to choose from those I which are lawful the profession or occupa- tion of life; to institute and maintain J actions of every kind in the courts, and to : ' make defense against unlawful violence. We desire to call the attention of the Xews specially to that part of the above which says that among these privileges and immunities is the right "to establish i family relations under the regulations of ! ,T the law," and that this means the law of ij' the land, and not a law of a church. j This privilege does not extend to the es- , tablishinent of family relations in viola- j tion of the "regulations of the law." j On the question of the elective fran- ;! cliise, Judge Cooley, immediately follow ing the language we have quoted, says: i The elective franchise, it has been said, is not of necessity a citizen's right; but when-, when-, ever he can bring himself within the qualifi cations prescribed therefor, it is his privilege privil-ege to do so, and particular and invidious distinctions must be regarded as forbidden. We trust this will satisfy the Xews as to the meaning of the particular clause of the Fourteenth Amendment quoted by it. i From this it will be seen that the citizens of all the States are referred to, and not I a small jwrtion of a mere sect. On the general question of privileges we beg to I call the attention of the Xews to the opin- : l ion of Mr. Justice Washington in the case I j of Cat-field v. Coryell , 4 Wash . C. C. 380 : 1 ' What urn the privileges and imniuni- '. ; ties of citizens of the several States? 1 We feel, no hesitation in confining these , 3 . i expressions to those privileges and immuni- I" ! ties which are in their nature fundamental, ; ' which belong to the citizens of all free gov- J " ' ernments; and which have, t all times, ' been enjoyed by the citizens of the several '" i': States which compose the Union, from the I i time of their beooming free, independent, I I and sovereign. What, those fundamental ! ' . principles are it would perhaps be more I j 5 ' tedious than difficult to enumerate. I ; i : They may, however, be compre- : : bended under the following general heads: I . protection by the government, the enjoy- f : inent of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, j and to pursue and obtain happiness and f , j safety, subject nevertheless to such restraints I ; as the government may justly prescribe for . : " the general good of the whole. ; From this, then, it will be seen that ; the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution are guaranteed to the I A citizens of all the States. In considering i the "privilege" of potygainy, it is well to I remember that this is not for the citizens of all the States. That the citizens of a : ; particular State may enjoy privileges not ' i , enjoyed by t he citizens of other States is ; true. On this subject, Mr. Justice Field, !; I in the case of Paul v. Virginia, 8. Wall. " i ISO, spoke as follows : t But the privileges and immunities secured to the citizens of each State in the several I v; States by the provision in question, are those ! . privileges aud immunit ies whioh are common ' ', I to the citizens in the later State, under their I : . constitution and laws, by virtue of their I )'i being citizens. Special privileges enjoyed ( , by citizens in their own States are not j . secured in other States by this provision. J ; .i It was not intended by the provision to give, ;', to the laws of one State any operation I ' -, in other States. They can have no such S . j operation, except by the permission, express ! , l or implied, of those States. The special I , f privileges which they confer must, there- j , ? fore, be enjoyed at home unless the assent j I " ' of other States to their enjoyment therein . ' be given. i ' ' ' i I ; ; : I Now, what of this privilege to practice I :; ! : polygamy? It can only be enjoyed by a hi j sect and as a sect, and can never be had j by the citizens of the State, or Territory, as citizens, unless the leaders of that par- I , ticular sect which claims the privilege ' , ' i . choose to bestow it. It does not come ' 'within the doctrine laid down by Mr. ; j Justice Field, liecause the sjecial privil- egt's of a particular State are for the ( ., benefit of all the citizens of such State, 1 while iolygamy is not for all the , . , , ' citizens - unless they subscribe to the j I j jdoctrines and obey the behests of a par- I I I ' tieuiar church, la it not somewhat 1 of a solecism to say "that the Consti- f . ; tution protects the special privileges , of.1 a particular -few, xwhen to in-' f f ! ' dulge in those privileges is to violate r ' i ! . j . ' .. a law of the land made in accordance with the very Constitution whose protection pro-tection is invoked? Crimes never became privileges, and the -law only undertakes to punish those who indulge in criminal privileges, and not to protect them. We trust the Xews will study the Constitution a little mons thoroughly, for there is sore need of it. - - |