Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 24, Number 17, Indianapolis, Marion County, 1 December 1874 — Page 2

THE INDIANA STATE SENTINEL TUESDAY. DECEMBER 1. 1871.

o

TiiK NEURO QUESTION AGAIN.

PROBLEM OF MIXED SCHOOLS. CONSmUIIONAUrY OF INDIANA'S SCHOOL. LWV. DECISION OF THE 8UPKKMB COURT OF THK STATU ON STATU AD INDIVIDUAL IUUliTd. No. ifiil. S,irnuel Cory, John heaver and Worthingtoa Cnig vs. Ciry Carter, from the Marion Superior Court. Bus&Irk, J. 8TATEMKNTOP THK CAT!. This was a proceeding by mandate oa the part f the appellee against the appellants. The apjfclJec.ia his pelitlon, alleged that ho was . c.lixen of the stale of Iudia.ia, aud resided lu school district. Mo. 2, la Lawrence township, Marion county, la the Sild state; that Le was the father of two children, Mary and Ildward farter, and the: graal'r.ther of Lacy aud John farter, all of who-u resided with hlra; that he was a negro of African descent, aud that hi sail children and grandchildren were alt negroes of the full bleed aud of the bhub descent; that his children and grandchildren were respectively of the ago that entitled then to the b;neflixof the common schools In the said district ; to at there whs a common at-boo I for white blid.en In progre s in M district and that his Raid children and grandchildren presented themselves at the school bouse In said district and demanded admission, and 10 be taught therein with the white children, but were refused admittance by the appellees. Heaver and Craig, the dliector and tea-hrot sail school, fwr the reason that the gatd school wasascb ol for white children and not for negro children; that after the refusal aforesaid he caused to be served upon the appellant a written reques- and demand that his said children aui graudchlldr-n shonld he received iiud iauUillu tho said school with the whit children of said district, but they were refused admission on y on the ground that they wer n trues ; that said appe laut and all other persons h ivo wholly neglected, failed and refused and nr ill neglect, full and relus to provide any vc:"ool in said tir.irict, or in any adjoining district n.:v ttuujü for said children or grandchlldien, lo uttend as scholars, an 1 that by reason ot the premises his said cM.dr' 11 and grandchildren are denied all opportunity to a' tend any school in said district or eisiu hero hi the ueiguboihood, as in right thoy are entitled to do. TUei is n allegation that the trustee of said sch. dist ict M. 2 had failed or refused to proVide the means f education for sum children within the .Us riot, outside of the s.iid school for white ehl dren. to t ue extent of tlieir proi ortion, according to number, of the school resources 01 tri. aid ii:s;r:ct. Thead i trie out was r-qu- stod to declare the tiiit T a lini-ision of paid neuro children inio iii- school tor white children ; arid to compel the appellants to admit them. An Rlivrn.il wr;t was Usu'-d u?alu.s. the appellants, reyuirlag thr-m to admit such chlldreu into the school la said district fir whits children, or appear and show cattle why they sliou d im . n unmit such children. Tue appellant appeared and' filed scperale demurrers to Ihe complaint, ni on the ground that it aid not siate laets sufficient to constitute a cu-t) ol action, but the demurrers were nonsuited ; und the appellant refusing to plead further, bat electing to s;and by their exceptions to th rulings or the court, the court give judgment lor a peremptory writ of mandate. The app-lmtiis appealed to the general term, whern the judgment of thespec.ai term Was affirmed. The error assigned 1, that the Superior Court, in gner d term, erred lu attlrmiu ths judgment of the court in speclil term. The que ion presented for our decision is. whether the court be. ow erred in overruling tiie demurrer to tqe complaint, the correct so ution of which will depend upon the proper construction to be placed upon the constitution and statu es of this state, and the constitution of the United tat.es; and as preliminary to the consideration of the grave constitutional questions arising la the reco:d, we proceed to inquire m hat provision the leglsla lire has made for the edacition of tne while and colored children cf ihe istate. STATIC LEGISLATURE. The act Of Match 6, lv05, provided for the annual assessment and collection of a tax on the property, real and personal, In the state (except that owned by negroes and mulattoes), for supporting a general system of common schools la the state. It provided for the enunieratioa each year of the white children within the respective to-.vn-hips, towns and cities in the Plate, be: ween the ages o- six and twenty-one years exclusive of m rried persons. It provided the off! ers and agencies lor the system, the mode and means of carrying It on, foe locating and establish! g scuool and carrying them on, for building school houses, and employing teachers, etc. It was essentially white noue bot wt itecinldren between the named ages, and who were unmarried, wer- entitled to its privileges. 3 Stau , 44j 172; Drapier vs. Carbriuae.il) Ind. 268. At the session of the legislature of this state next after the ratification of the XIV. amendment to the constitution of the United States, an a. was p-ts-ed by the general assembly of this state, entitled "An act to render taxation for ommon i-chool purposes uniform, and to provide for the education of the e iiored cnildreu of he sia'e," which was approved May 13, 18tt: and is as fohows: Sectios 1. Be it enacted by the general assembly ofthe state of Indiana, That la assessing and collecting taxes for school purposes under existing laws, all property, real and personal, subject to taxation 'or state and county purposes, shall be axed for the support of common schools wi hout regard to the race or color of the wnerof the property. sec. 2. All children of the proper age, without regard to race or color, shall hereafter be Included ia the enumeration ofthe children of the re peclive school districts, towi ships, towug and cities of thisstate lor school purposes : but in mkin Mien enumeration the oilioers harmed, by law, with that duty, shall enumerate tue colore! children of proper age, who may re ldeinau scuool distict.in a separate aud distinct list f.om that in which the otherscho d hildreii of such district snail be enumerated. bee. 3. The trustee or trustees or each township, town, or city shall organize the colored children into separate schools, hflviug all the rights and privileges of otner schooLs of tue township: Provided. There are not a suflicient number within attending dlstmce, the several districts may be consolidated and ;orm one district, nut if there are not a sufficient number wuhln reasonable distance to be thus consolidated, the trustee or trustee shall provide such other meana of education for said children as hall nse their proportion, according to number, f school revenue to the beat advantage. SKe. 4. All laws relative to school matters, not inconsistent with thi act, shall be deemed applicable to colored scuools. Heo. 5. Whereas, an emergency exists for the immediate taking effect of this act, the same shall be In force from and after Its passage. 3 Btatutes, 472. s Prior to the passage of such act, the assessment f taxes for school purposes had been confined to the property of white persons. The first section provided for the levy and collection of a tax lor school purposes upon ail the property within tn - state subject to taxation, without regard to t he race or color of the owner. The second section adds to the enumeration, directed in section XIV of the act of March 6, IH all colored children of the proper age, within the stale, and directs them to be enumerated at the same tlm with the white children, but in setarate 1st or class from that In which the white children are enumerated. The third ection commands the trustees of eacn township, town or city in the state, to organize the colored children therein. Into separate schools, with all ihe rights and privileges of white schools in the particular township, town or city. Bo. if the n amber of colored chlldreu within attending distance are not sufficient to organize a school, the trustee may consolidate several districts into one for that purpose. And If the number of olored children wit hin rea. son a hie attending distance are not sufficient to be thus consolidated, ihe trustees shall provide such other means of education for burIi' colored hndren as shall use their proportion, according to numbers, of the school revenue to the best advantage. The fourth section makes all laws relative to school mattern, no' inconsistent with tne provisions of tho act, applicab e to colored schools. CONSTJ1CT10XALITY OF THE ACT. It is, In the first p'ace, claimed that the act of May 13, ly;9,is in conflict with section 19 of artiei4ofonr constli ution, which provides that ery act shall "embrace but one subject and ma lers properly conree'ed therewitn. which suty-.e- si. ail berxprcsed in the title." v.eii.iK tne 4Uijt-c: ot t' e act is common schools, and that the laxa ion of the property of I persons 'or chool purpose, and the enumerUoaof.and providing schools for the colored children of the state are properly oonnecUd with tru subject of the ,ct. We have so frequently placed a construe: Ion upon the above quoted sec: ion that that w do not i! em it nec essary to re-examine tne -qiv.stioz. We cite the!

late case of the btate on the relation ol I'itman vs. Tucker, Indiana, where many of the cases are cited. it is verv plain and obvious to us, that by the supplemental act of May 13, lsw, the leg slat :re has provided lor the educatl n of the white and colored children of the state In separate schools, and the quetion pr.seuted tor our decision Is, whether such legislation Is in conflict with the constitution ot this state or the constitution of the United Mates. It is contended that ihe act In question isropugnanttos ction iSJof article I, and section 1 of articles, and they are: "fectlou Zi. Tne neutral Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, prlvl egtsorirarau .ltles which, upon the sama terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens." 1Ü.4 II., H4. Section 1, article VIII. U U. 4 II , 4S), declar a. that "know ledge anu learn lng, generally diffused throughout a community, bei ug essential lothe fn enervation of a free government, it shall be he duty of the General Assembly to encourage bv all suitable means, moral, In tell ca-u.ecien-title, and agricultural Improvement, aud to pro vide bylaw for a Kentrai and unifofui synetn of common schools, wherein tuition shall be without chaiga. and equally open to all." It Is Important that we should settle In advance, the rules by w hich we are to be guided lu placing a construction upon the constitutional provisions ab ve quoted. In the Mate vs. Gibson, m 'nd. SS9, we held that It was settled by very hlghautnorlty tha , lu placing a construe Ion upon a wiltlcn constitution, or anr clause or part thereo', a court should look to the history of the times and examine the state of things existing wneu the constitution, or any part thereof, was fra ned and adopted, to ascertain the old law. t; e mischief and tho remedy. The court should also look to the nature and objects of the particular powers, duties and rights lu question, with all the aids and lights of coteniporary history, a d give to the words of each provision Just such operation and fore .consistent with their legitimate meanIn, as will fairly serve the end proposed. Kendall vs. The Uni'ed Htates, liFeiersl; I'rigg vs. The Commonwealth, ltf Peters, 5."9. In the slaughter-house cases.lti Wallace, SM, the samerul s were laid down and Illustrated with great force by reference to th history of the times and condition of things which brought about the recent amendments to the constitution of the Un teil .States. Jiulje Cooiey, In his great work on Constitutional Limitations, o pageölsavs: "A cardinal rule In dealing with written Instruments Is, that. they shall rec-lve an unvarying interpretation, and that their practical construction Is to be uniform, A construction is not to be made to mean one thing at one time, und another at some subsequent time hen circumstances may have so chaneed, as perhaps to make a diilerent rule lu tne case seem deirable. A principal share of the brmeüt expected from written coistltutlon would be l i if the rules they established were so flexible as to bend to circumstances or be modified by public opinion. It is with special reference o the varying moods of public opinion, and with a view io punlng ihe fundamentals of government b'jond their comrol, that theso instruments are framed; and there can be no su- h steady and imperceptible change In their rules as inheivs in the principles of the common law. Tho-e beniflceut maxims of the common law which guard person and property have grown and expanded untl they mean vastly more to us than tuey did to our ances ors, and are moio minute, particular and pervading in their Protections; aud we may confidently looit forwurd in the future to still further modifications in the direction of impiovement. Puolio sentlmeuf and action effect such

charges, and the courts recognize them, but a court or legislature which should allow a change in public sentiment to influence It in giving construction to a wrl'ten constitution noi war ranted by the inte itlou of Its founders, would bejustJy chargeable with reckless disregard of onic ai oath aud public duty; and If its course could become a precedent these Instruments w ould be of little avail. The violence ot public passion is quite as likely tobe in the direction of oppression as in any other; and the necessity bills of rights in our fundamental laws lies mi inly in the danger that the legislature will be influenced by temporary excitements and passions among the people to ad pt opprevsive enactments. What a court Is to do, therefore, is to declare the laws as written, leaving it to the people themselves to make such chauges as ne v circumstances may require. The meaning of the constitution Is fixed wuen it is adopted, and it is not different at any subsequent time when a court has occasion to pass upon it." Again the learned author says: "The object of construction, as applied to a written constitution, is to give effect to the intentof the peoplo in adopting it. in the caseof all written laws, it is the intent of thelaw-glver that is to be enforced." 0 03 Another cardinal rule of const-uction laid down by thi au hor is. that the whole Insi rument is to be examined in placing a construction upon any portion or clause thereof, lie says: 4,or is 11 lightly to be iufeired tuat any portion of a written law Is so ambiguous as to require intrinsic aid in its construction. Every Mich ins'rument is adopted as a whole, and a clause which, tandiuit by itself, might seem of doubtful Import, may yet be made plain by comparison wit a other clauses or portions of the arne law. It is therefore a rule of construction, that the whole is to be examined wito a view to arriving at the true intention of each part, and this feir Edward Coke regards the most natural and genuin, e method of expounding a statute. lf any sect on (of a law) be intricate, obscure, or doubtful, the proper mode of discovering its true m-aulng is by comparing it with the other sections, and finding out the sense of one clause by the words or obvious intent of another; 'and in making this comparison it is not to be supposed that any words have been employed without occasion, or without intent that they should have effect as part of the law. The rule applicable here la, that effect is to be given. If posslslble, to the whole instrument, and to every section and clause. If different por ions seem to conflict the courts must harmonize them, if practicable, and lean in favor of a construction which ill render every word operative, rather than one which may make some idle andnugatorv." "This rnle is especially applicable to written constitutions, in which the people will be presumed to have expressed themselves in care ul and measured terms, corresponding with the immense Importance of Ihe jowers delegated, leaving as little as possible to Implication. It is scarcely conceivable that a ca-e can arise when a court would be Justifiable in declaring any portion of a written constitution nugitory because of ambiguity. One part may qualify another so as to restrain its operation, or apply it otherwise than the natural construction would require If it stood by itseir; but one part Is not to be allowed to defeat aaolher, if by any reasonable construction Ihe two cn be made to stand together." in support of the above propositions reference is made in the notes to the fodowlog authorities: People vs. Morrill, 21 Wend, ofel; New ell vs People, 7 N. Y., 109; IMcKoan vs. Devins, 3 Barb, 1!M; People vs. Blodgett, 13 Mich., 138; United btates vs. Fisher, 2 Cr inch, iSU9; Bosley vs. Matting!', 14 li. Monroe, b'J; bturgls vs. Urownlnshleld, I Wheat, 2u2; Schooner Tanlind s cargo vs. United btates, 7Cranch, tU; Ogden vs. btrontj 2 Paine. C. 0., ö4; United btates vs. Roysdtle, 1 Hemp, 417; Mouthwark Bank vs. Commonwealth, 24 Penn. tit., 416; Ingalls vs. Colej 47 Me., 51ü; McClusky vs. Cromwell, 11 N. .,593; fr'urman vs. New York, 5; Kandf 16 ; People vs N. Y Central It. It. Co., 24 N. Y iV2; Bid well vs Whitaker. 1 Mich., 479; Alexander vs Worthlngton, 5 Md., 471; Cantrell vs Owens, 14 Md., 215; Case vs. Wildridge, 4 Ind., 51 ; Putnam vs. Flint, 10 Pick, 504 ; Lud.ow vs. Johnson, S Ohio, 553; District Township vs. Dubuque, 7 Iowa, 2b"2; Pattison vs. Yuba, 13 Cal., 175; Hpencer vs. The State, 5 Ind., 74 ; Dow vs. Heed, 10 Pet, Uli; Ureen castle Township vs. Black, 6 Ind., S); btowell vs. Lord Yonch, Plowd, 3ti5; Hroomes Maxims, (5th Am. ed.) 551; ix. Lit. :M A ; Attorney-General vs. Detroit & P. R. Co.,2 Mich., 13S; People vs. Burn's, 5 Mich.. 114; Manly vs. Htate,7 Md., 1.15; Parkinson vs. Htate, 14 Md., 184; Belleville R. K. Co. vs. Gregory, 15111. UUjRyegate vs. Wardsboro, 30 Ver., 7JÖ; Brooks vs. Mobile School Com., 31 Ala. 227: Dow vs. Dubois, 1 Harrison, 285; Dow vs. Hchank, 3 Halst. 1; Walco-t vs. Wlgton, 7 Ind., 49; People vs. Purdy, 2 Ulli, 38; Green vs. Weiler, 32 Miss., 650; Warren vs. Sherman, 5 Texas, 441 ; Quick vs. Whitewater township, 7 Ind .,570; Gillons vs. Ogden. Wheat, lsS;Hmithon Statutes, sections bOJ, 503; Sedgwick on stat. and const, con. 22, 233, 251 and 252. An examination of the above authorities shows that they are in point and fully support the doctrines announced. It is essential to a correct interpretation of the above provisions of our constitution In the light of the above lules of construction, that we khould look to the history of the Ihnes and examine the condition of things existing prior to and at the time ofthe adaption anri latiticatlon of our present state constitution, and compare the sections in question with other portions and c'auses of auch constitution. We will limit our inquiry into the political condition of the negroes In this state from the organization of our state government in lslttdowu to the ratification of the 13th 14th aud 15th amendments to the constitution of the United Htates, and evidently to their statutes in other states of the union. STATE OP THE KEORO INT INDIANA. Prior to the act of May 13, lSGD, making taxation for common school purposes uniform, and providing for the education of the colored chlli i en of the state, (3 lud. Stat. 472), no provision was made for their education In this state. As a race their condition was one of marked and settled inferiority before the law, being rendered strictly to the enjoyment of the three primary rights only, and for a large portion of time legally prohibited from their full exercise, viz.: the right of personal security; he right of per

sonal liberty, and the i ight of private property. But the p wer of exercising' these rights was practically limited in d'gree. as compared with the exerc'se and enjoy rneut of the same rights by th- white race This was their most favorable condition in several states of the Union, thev being admitted to the e-Ual exe cl- of civil and political rights and iri vileges with th-i whites in but nn m.t of the Union, iu nearly one half or the states of the Union, as a race, they lived in a slate of life-long servitude, having no control of their time or acilous no rinht 'o aequtre property no lawlul power io It-llow the prom pi I u it of their own thoughts and Judgments their lives and limbs t1 eir minds and strength, the properly and subject to the will of their masters; and. notwithstanding the proclamation of emancipation, this continued tobe their condition, practically and In a large legre, until utter the ratification of the 1 ith amendment to the constitution or the Uniled stau, December IN, 1865. 2 Keul's Com. 7 Kd side page 252 2VS, and noiel to Hide pa) .j$; .Scott 3t Sandford, ill Hon. 3t!l; smith vs. Moody, 20 Ind., I'M. hev. btat. I83i, 375: Id. isis, is. By ectlou 7 of article 11 of the constitution of 18 6, it is provided that there shall be t either slavery nor involuntary servitude in thisstate, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. R. S. IH.1S, p 50 faction 2 of article 3 provided for an enumeration of all the white male Inhabitants above the age of twenty-one years. H. 8. Dsns. p. 38. bee ion 1 of articles limited the right of suf-. fmge to the white male ci liens of the Untied btates. of the aeeof tweuty-one, and who bad resided in the state one year immediately preceding theelectlnn. R. 8. lüs, u. By the act of February lo, 1.134, every such person coming Into or being brought Into this state, was prohibit d fiom residing therein, unless bond with good aud sufficient security, to be approved by ih oveisre of the poor of some township, was given on behalf of such person, payable to ti.e state of Indiana, in the penal sum ol tint, conditioned that such person should not, at any lime, become a charge io the county iu whlc sach bond was given, nor to any other county in the stale, as also for such person's good behavior, etc. Ii provided penalties, likewise, lor failure to comply with those provisions, consisting of hiring such person out and appl vi g the proce ds to his,beuent. and removal from the state; and by nn imposed, and reovered by presen meat or Indictment, tor harboring any such person failing to give the resulted bond. This act ieruain-d u.on the statute book of this state, and continued In force lor a period of over twelve year?; and received the Judicial sanction ofthe supreme mrtof ttv state. Kev. Hint. ISd, v. p. 375 .76; Rev. sttaU 1SJS. p. p. 418 419; the Stat vs. Cooper, a Black fd.,2 ; BaptUte vs. the State, Id., 183; iilcklana vs. the biate, 8 id ,355. Article XIII. of the constitution of this state, which looketfecton the first day of November, ltl. and supers ded the constitution of iMtf, prohibi ed nero sand rau!at.oes r-mi coming m o or settling in this state after its adop lou declared all contracts wiiu such persons void, aud

maue u an oiiease punishable Dy flue of not let s than ten nor mue than five hundr. d dollars for any per-on to employ them; aud this article was ubmiited.as adlstiuct propohitiou, o the p -ople of the state r the rai proval or disapproval, and was adooted by a voie ol Mtf.97tj to 21.Mitj. 1 G. & 11. p. 52; Dllio t's Hist lud. 577. Other pi o visions of this cons' nation excluded negroes aud iuulatioes from the elective i.nchise from holding oflice iu the state or any of its depa. tiuents from ihe enumeration for senatorial or repres niatlve purposes; am from participation In all of tho nr. vileges pertalnin" io fti'i aud ac ive citizenship tnaKt separate and distlnc. ciass ot inierior before tho law, and placing them politically in a separate body, wi.n no cons.itutional graut of priv ie'es an. i immunities under the title of "citizen'or "citizens." but leaving them in posses ion only of the tnree primary rights hereto'ore mentioned 1 Op. All y Gen'l.öoö: 4 Oo. Att'y Geu'l. 147; Smith vs. Moody, :(j lud. 29-J. " ' ' This the constitui ion, and sunsequent recognized aud decided constitutional legislation, clearly establish. Ac:sJuuel8, ls52. i (j. jt H. 443; Hatw od vs. The btate, 18 Ind. Ml- Berk shire vs. Tue täte, 7 Ind. 3S'J. In tbe light of the foregoing history, constitutional provisions, legislative acts and Judicial constructions thereof, it is very plaia and obvious to us that persons of the Africau race were not in the minds or contemplation ofthe wise or thoughtful framers of our constitution when they prepared and agreed upon the above quoted sections, or ofthe people ot the sute when they ratified audadop ed the constitutum ontaiuing such provisions. In our opinion, the privileges and immunities secured by section 23 of article i were not inteoded for persons ot the African race,for the section expressly limits the eujov ment of such privileges and immunities to citizens, and at that time ncuroes were neither citizens of the United States nor of misstate, it was held by this court in bears vs. the Board of Commissioners or W arren county, 3d Ind. 2b7, that the pri viietres and immunities secured by the above quoted section were Intended for citizens of this state Nor, in view of the other provisions of our constitution, and lathe light of the ruiesof construction before stated, can it ba successfully malutainei that the provisions ot section 1 of article 8 were intendei for the children of he African race, it is unreasonable to suppose that the framers of the coustitution, who had denied to that race the right ot citizenship, of sutrrae. of hold 11 g office, of serving oa juries aodof testilying as witnesses in any case where a white person was a party, aud had p.ohibited, under heavy pains and penalties, the further emigration of that race into the state, intended to provide for the education of the children of that race in our common schools with the ,'hUe children of the state. The public sentiment of the state at that time was uufiiendly to the African rce ana their participation in governmental affkiis. and de manded their exclusion from the state; and It uiiuiwrus io Bay, inmg nere, whether such policy was wise or unwise, aud we speak of it ouiy us a maiier oi nistory having a bearing upon the construction of our constitution. An application of the rules of construction, heretoh re laid down, to the various provisions of our constitution, will conclusively demonin u iubuvii..iuu3 ui ne sections under examination have no application tothechlldren and graudchildren of the appellee. One of the cardinal rules of construction is, that courts shall give effect to the intent of Ilia framers of the instrument and of thepejplein adopting It. Then, as It is manifest that neither the framers of the constitution nor the people in adopting it, intended that the children ofthe Africau race should participate in the advan tages or a general and uniform system of common scnoois, we possess no power to adjudge to tuem what was not designed for them . Another rule ol construction is, that in placing a constr ction upon one section or clause, courts are required to examine the whole instrument and to give effect. If possible, to the whole instru render every word operative, rather than one which may make some idle and nugatory. There is but one construction which will preserve the unity, harmony and consistency of our state constitution and that Is to hold that it was made and adopted by and for the exclusive use and enjoyment of tho white race. Any other construction would convict tne members of the constitutional convention and the voters of the state of the grossest Inconsistency, absurdity and injustice. It would be monstrous to hold that the framers of the constitution In adopting and the voters of the state In ratifying it, intended that the common schools of the state should be open to the children of the African race, when, by the same instrument, that portion of such race, as then resided in the Btate, were denied all political rights, privileges and immunities and the farther emigration or that race into the state was prohibited by the thirteenth article of the constitution, which reelved the almost unanimous approval of the voters of the state. Another important rule of construction is, that the meaning of a constituion is fixed whea it is adopted, aud it Is not different at any subsequent time when a court has occasion to pass upon It. A constitution is inflexible and can not bend to circumstances, or be modified by public opinion. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to declare the law aa is written, leaving to the people iu their sovereign capacity to make such changes as new circumstances may require; and in my opinion, using the appropriate and forcible language of Judge Cooly: "A court or legislature which-should allow a change in public sentiment to Influence It In giving construction to a written constitution not warranted by the intention of its founders, would be Justly changeable with reckless disregard of Official otü and public duty." The views whih we have expressed are greatly strengthened aud enforced by the construction which this court placed upon a section of the constitution of 18itj, and of an act passed while it was in force. bectlon 1 of article 9 declares that "knowledge and learning. geueraUy diffused throughout a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government and spreading the opportunities and ad van' ages of education through the various parts ofthe country, being highly conducive to this end," etc. "The general assembly shall, from time to time, pass such laws as shall be calculated to encourage intellectual, scientiflcal and ngiicullnral improvement, by allowing rewards and Immunities for the promotion and Improvement of arts, sciences, commerce, manufactures and natural history, and to countenance and encourage the principles of humanity, Industry and morality." Section 2 of said article provided that "It shall be the duty of the general assembly, as soon as circumstances wlli permit, to provide by law for a general system of education ascending in a regular gradation from township

ment; auu li ainvrent portions seem to conflict, the courts mus. harmonize them, if practicable, and lean in lavorof a construction hih win

schools to a state university, wherein tuition j shall be gratis and equally free to alL" IU S., : 1318, pp 48 and 4S. While the above constitution was in force the legislature provided lor a general common school system, Ihe ltrJd section of w hich act was as fol- . lows: "When any school is supported lna: y

v. p. v 'j j .uu.,v inni i una, ur uv laAH tlou, s- long as the mouey so derived shall be expended therein, such school shall be open and free to all the wh lie children resident wlthlu the dtsirlct, over five and cnJer twenty-one years of age " Chapter 15, K. h.. IMS, p. ;:.!. In thecuseof Lewis vs. Heuly, 2 Ind., lilJi, this court was required to place a const ructvn upou the above quoted stctlon, and it was h'M that negro children were not ent iled to admission to the Kchooin wl h the white children, and that the legislature had the right under the coustltutou to exclude negro children from our public schools. It -as further held that, although the negroes mlht be eutltled losuara in the funds det ived lrotu Ihe sate of lands donated by Con gre's, yet they would have to do so In Herarate schools, aiid not in school, with white children. Both constitutions provided for a general and uniform system of common schools; both rovided that the tuition thoulri be iree and the schools equally open to all. Bolh constitutions deprivtd he negroes of all political riglrts. if th legislature, under the constitution of lSKi, hadtherUht to exclude Ihe negroes fem the public schools for while children, it is dilUcult to see why It may not be done tinder the present citis til ution. Having reached the true construction of the coustliu'lon of this state, as it came fiom the hands of Its framers, and received the (auction or herquallfled voters, ihe next Mep is to fli'd out tho extent of its qualification or change by the coustitution of the Culled btates. BKARINO OF UMTKD 8TATKS CONSTITUTION, St ction 2 of article 4, of the constitution o. the United States declares, "that the citizens of each Btate shall be entitled to all privileges and Immunities of citizens in the several states." This section, at an early date, receive t a construction in the case of Corfle d vs. Coryell, which has ever since been recognized and approved. It relates only to "lhoe privileges and immunities which are fundamental;" and which may all "be comprehended nn er the foil wing head-: protection by the government, with the right to acquire and posses property ot every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may prescribe ior the general go .si of the whole." In the slaughter house case-, the Supremo Cour of ih United btates said, "its sole puroose was to declare to tho aeveral states, that whatever those rights, as you g ant th-tu to , our own citizens, or as j oa limit or qualify, or impose restrictions on their exerc:se, the sam neither more nor less, shall b the measure of ihe rights of'itizensof other states within your Jurisdiction." It did not compel the slate, .nto whic l the citizens of another state removed, to allow him the exerciso of the same rights which he enjoyed in the state from whicu he remov d. Corfleld vs. Coryell, 4 Wash. cir. rt. Kep., 371: Siauuhtcr House Cases, 16 Wal. 7, 77: Bradwell vs. Ti e btate, Id. 138; Watd vs. Maryland, 12 Id. 410; Connor et ul. vs. Kdio t et a'., is. How. 691; The Board, 3ti Ind. 2r7: The Jeffcrsonville R. K Co. vs. Hendricks, 11 lud. 48. It is well settled by repeated decisions of the federal and state courts that with the exception of the limitations impo-ed upontLe powers f the states by section ten of article one of the con tilutioi of the United States tho several states were left as beforo the federal union was lormed, wl h full power to declare the rights of their citizens, without interference from the federal governi'ient. It is a familiar rule of construction of the constitution of the uniof, that the Mvereign powers vested in the state governments by their respective constitutions remain unaltered and unimpaired, except so far as ttey were granted to the government of the United btates. In one of the states of the union, colored children were entitled to admission Into schools for white children, and to be taught w!;b whitechlldreu, and yet, if a person residing in such state should remove into some other state, where such right is denied, the right so exercised in the state from whicu the person removed would be lost, because, it was not one of those fundamental rights which accompanies the person.but a domestic regulation exclusively within the constitutional aud legislative power of each state, and to be regarded in the nature of a domestic regulation necessary for the good of the waole people, or which ih good of the people of one state, in their sovereign Judgment, required to be different from the regulation in another, as best securing "the gei.eral comfort and prosperity of the state." btory on the Constitution, see's 1SV5. 1409: Cooiey 's Const. Lim. 573, 671; 2 Kent's Com. side d. 71; 2 Op. Att'y tienT 42u; Common we Uth vs. Alger, 7 Cash. 84: Tho City of New York vs.Milu, 11 Pet. lVJ; Slaughter House Cases, 10 Wal. 62; Bradwell vs. The State,ld.l30; Thayer vs.Hedges, li Ind. 282; Potter's Dwarrls on btat. 3i2, 452, 4j5, 4Ö1. It Is very plain that the tenth amendment of the constitution of the United btates can not receive such construction as will aid the claim t the appellee. It declares "that the powers no delegated to the United States, by the constitu tlon, nrr prohibited by it to the state, are re served to the states respectively, or to the peo? pie,-ana tne power to ux tne quail neat ions et the citizen ofthe state, and to establish his rlghis In the state, is of the powers expressly re served to the state by this amendmen ; for there is no express limitation of the power of tne s.ates, in tne ieuerai constitution lu mis re spect, as it then stood, and such limitation could not exist without ex press mention. Rawle on constitution, 4-b7; btory on the Constitu tlon, sec. 1,904; Works of Webster, vol. 3, n. 322; Cooley's Const. Lam., 19; Federalist 140; oiaugnier nouse cases, io vvai., 70, 71, 72, 73; nanou vs. üaiuuiore, ret., tmitn vs, Maryland. 18 How., 71; Pervear vs. Common wealth, 5 Wal., 475; Barker vs. People, 3 Cow., (SK; James vs. Comrjou wealth, 12 S. & It., 221; jane vs. commonwealth, 3 Met. (Kv.) is; Lin coin vs. Smith, 27 Vt., Warren vs. Paul, 22 iun., ziu: ine btate ex rei. Lakey, 02 ind., 1. That the views hereinbefore expressed cor rectly represent the relative nowers nf the federal and state governments at the close of tne great civil war and until niter the ratifi cation of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, which followed the termi nation of that contest, can not, we tnlak, be successiuuy controverted. We next proceed to determine whether such arnenumcnts, or euner or mem, lias worked a change, and, if it has, to what extent. The thirteenth amendment was proposed by Congress on the first day of February, 15-Jö, and declared by the secretary of state to have been ratified December 18, 1K&5.- It declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United btates, or any place eubject to its Jurisdiction; and Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 3 Stat., (Davis' bup.,) 679. This amendment was to prevent any question in the future as to the effect ot the war, and the president's proclamation cf emancipation upon slavery; and its obvious purpose was to forbid all shades and conditions of African slavery. Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wal 68, 69. It had no other office; and its real effect was more tor the future than the present. As to the matter of social and political rights tbe African was left Just where section 37, article 1, ot our state constitution left him, and Bubfect to all the lnconveniencles and burdens incident to his color and race, except bis former one of servitude. He was a person whose place and office, in the body politic, was yet to be designated and established. He possessed no political rights, in the usual and proper sense of that term .through, or had none conferred by this enactment. Following this constitutional amendment, the civil rights bill of April 9, 1806, was enaued by Congrets, the first section of which declares who are citizens of the United States, and peclfles certain rights which shall be accorded to such citizens in the states and territories, and the residue is made up of pains and penalties for violation of the rights sought to be conferred, and the machinery ior enforcing its provisions. It is not worth while to enquire into the effect of this act, or whether the federal constitution, which made citizens of the different states citizens of the United States, could lie changed by a simple congressional enactment; tor it is clear, admitting it to be valid, that it does not relate to, nor bear upon the right claimed In this case, lor it purports only to confer upon negroes and mulattoea the right, in every state and territory, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal froperty, and the full and equal benefit of all aws and proceedings for the security of person and property as enjoyed by white citizens, and subjects them to like pains and penalties. 3 btat. Ind. ösu. In this nothing Is left to inference. Every right Intended is specified. - The 11th. amendment to the federal Constitution was proposed by Congress July 18. 18WJ, and declared by the secretary of state to have been ratified .July 28, 1868. It consists of several sections; but section 1 Is the only ruie necessary to this examination. It declares that "all persons born or naturalized In the United btates, and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are citizens 01 the United States, and of the ttate wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any la w which shall abridge the privileges or Immunities of citizens of the United btates: nor shall any state deprive any person ol life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person.wlthin its Jurisdiction the equal protection of tho laws." This section can betterbe understood or construed, by dividing and considering it in four

j.ruwu . .uaryiauu, i- w neat, 413,11; IVople Vs. Brady, 40 Ca. IIIS; story on the Constitution, see's l,i, 1,M: Coo ley's Coits ittitlonal Litn. 15, 1, 397; Pot ter's Dwarrls on Slat. 5J5. 52i: Sears vs

paragraphs, or clauses, the last, however, being a mete restatement 01 what prtctdes it. First. "All persons born or naturalized In the L ulled States, and subject the jurlsdi lion t hereof, are cit zensof the United States, and of the state wherein they res de "

in iue oiaugnitT it use las Court of the United States say, tlon, "that pers n- may bo United Slates without regard iU tue fsiatlxmer II USA l'jlKe. th SorrTr,, this is a declarabo clilzeu of the r,' rrt rf t trk tit. If fl ;u'M"i particular state, and It overtures the Drd Scuttle Mon. by making all persons b.rn wUliin the Lulled Mute-, sod subject to Its lurlsdictiou, Citizen of the United Mates. Tnat lis mala purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase subject to its Jurisdiction,' wa, intend d toexc ude from itsopratlon children of minist, rw, cousui.s.aud citizens or subjects of fdreign states born within ihe Unite states." 1 1 recognizes and establishes a "dStlnctlon between cilizeuship of tne United btates aud citizenship of a state. Not only may a man be a citizen of the Unlud Slates without being a citizen of a Btate, but an important el mcnt is neceosary to convert the former Into the latter. He must reside within the state to make him a citizen of it, but It Is cnl v necessary that he should be born or naturalized in .he United States to be a ci'.lzeu ofthe Union. It is quite clear then, that there Is a cilizenshlu of the Lnued States, aud a citizenship of antäte, which are distinct from each other, and whit h depend upon different characteristics and clrcums ances in the individual." Hence a negro m-y be a citizen of the United S'ates and reside without its territoria limits, or within some one of the territories; but he cau not be a citizen ot a slate until he becomes a bona fide resident of the state. Second. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or lmmunitiesor citizens of the United Slates." This clause does not reierto cl izeus of the states, li embraces only citizens or the United States. It leaves out the words "citizen of tue state," which Is so carefully used, aud used in eontiadlsiinction to cltizeusof the United States in the preceding s utence. it places the privileges and lmmuultiesof citizens of the United Slates under the protection of the federal c-u tltation, and , leaves the privileges aud Immunities of citizens of a s ate under the protection ot the state constitution. This Is fully shown by the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United states in the Slaughter House cases, ltj Wallace, Mr. Justice Miller, in delivering the opinion ot the court aud in speaking in re.erence to the clause under exatuiuatiou, says; "It Is a Utile remarkable, if thl- clauue was tutende! as a protection lo tho citizen of a. slate aga:nst the It-gislat tve power of his own state, that the word . itizen of the state should be left out when it is so carefully used, and .used in contradistinction to citizens of ihe United Slates, in the ve.y sen'enc which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology w?s adopted understandiiiiiy and with a purpose." .f the privileges and immunitle of the citizen of the United stales, aud or ihe privileges and Immunities of the citiztn of the state, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that It is only the former which are ptaced by this clause under the protection of the federal constitution, and lhat the latter, whatever they may be, are i.ot intended to have any additional protection by this paragiaph of the amendment." "If, then, there is a difference between the privileges and Immunities belonging toacl izen of the United btates as such, and those be.ongmg to the citizen (if the si atd as such, the latter must rest for theirs curlty aud protection wli-re they have h retofore rested; lor they are not embraced by this paragraph of tho amendment." The same learned J .ide in tl:3 further examination of the second clause says: "it would be the vainest show or learning to attempt to prove by t Rations of authority that up to the adoption of the recent amendmeuts, no claim or pretense was set up that those rights depended on the federal government for their existence or protection, beyond ihe very few express limitations which the federal constitution imposed upon tho states such, for instance, as the prohibition against ex-post facto laws, bills of attainder, and laws impairing the obligations of contract. But with the exception of these and a few other restrictions, tho eutire domain of the pilvileges aud immunities of citizens of the states, as above defined, lay within the constitutional and legislative power of the states, ar d without that öf the federal government. Was it the purpose of the fourteenth amendment, by the simple declaration that no statelhould makeoreuforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and Immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protec ion of all the civil rights which we ha .e mentioned,from the states to the federal government? And when it Is dec'ared that Congress shall have the power to en fore that article, was it Intended to bring within the powerof Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the sUtes? "Ail this and more must follow. If the position of the plaintiffs In error be sound. For not only are these righu subject to the control of Congress whenever, in lis discretion, any of them are supposed to be abridged by state legislation, but that body may also pass laws in advance, limiting and restricting the exer else of legislative power by the states, in the most ordinary and useful functions, as in its juumenuiniay imuK proper on an sucn sub jects. And still further, such a construction followed by the reversal of the Judgments of the Supreme Court of Louisiana in these cases" (theie Judgments sustained the validity of the grant, by the legislature of Louisiana of an exclusive right guarded by certain limitation as to price, etc., t j a corporation created by it, for twenty-five years to build and maintain slaughter houses, tc, and prohibited the right to all others, within a certain locality), "would constitute this court a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the states, on the civil rights of their own citizens, wi'h authority to nullity such as it did not approve as consistent with those rights, as they existed at the time of the adoption or uns amenament. " t he argument, we admit, is not always the most conclusive wnicn is drawn from the .consequences urged against the adoption of a par ticular construction of an instrument. But when, as in the caso before us, these conse quences are so serious, so far-reaching and per vading, m great a departure from the str cture ana spirit of our institutions; wheu the effect is to letter and degrade the state governments uy suojeciing inetn to tne control or I ongress, in the exercise of powers heretofore uuiversally conceded to them of the most ordinary and luimanieniat character; wuen in fact it radically changes the whole theory of the relation ot the state and lt deral governments to eacu other and of both these governments to the people, the argument has a force that is Irresistible, in the absence of language which expres'ies such a purpose too clearly to admit of doubt. We are convinced that no such lesults were io tended by the Cojgress which nro nosed these amendments, nor by the legislature of the states wntcn ratiuea tnein." Third. "orshallany state demiveanv per son 01 me, 11 oeny, or property, without uue process of law." This clause is the same contained in the fifth amendment to the constitution of the United states, bat there applied to the action of the ieaerai government, and here placed as a check upon the states. But the constitution of our state, and perhaps of all the states, contain lust sucn a provision, 60 mat it expresses no new principle, out is tne old rule in force since the foundation i f the state governments. It prohibits the states from depriving any person of life. liberty or property except "in the due course of legal proceedings, according to those rules and forms which have been established" by the state, "for the protection of private rights." uooiey on const, urn. , 007; Westervelt vs. uregg, li in. 1 ., 2U. Fourth. Nor deny to any person within its Jurisdiction tbe eoual protection of the laws. in regard to this clause tne supreme Con: t of this state, in The State vs. Gibson, 36 Ind., 3b9, say, 11 "seems to nave been added in the abunaance or caution, ior it provides in express terms what was the fair, logical, and Just Implication from what had preceded it, and that was, tnat the persons made citizens bv the amendment should be protected by the laws in tne same manner, and to tne same extent, that white citizens were protected." In the case of The State vs. Gibson, supra, this court was called upon to place a construction upon the fourteenth amendment to the constitution Of the United Stales. It was claimed in that case, that su?h amendment had abolished the laws of this state prohibiting tbe intermarriage of negroes and whites. We held that marriage Is a purely domestic Institution, and sublect to the exclusive control of the state; that such amendment had not conferred on tbe federal government any power to interfere with the institution of marriage: and that such amendment had not enlarged the powers of the federal government nor diminished those of the states. We then said: "The fourteenth amendment contains no new grant of power from the people, who are inherent possessors o all power, to the federal gov ernment. It did not enlarge the powers of the federal government, nor diminish thofeof the states. The inhibitions against the states doing certain things have no force or effect. They do not prohi bit the states from doing any act that fhey could have done without them. The only effect ofthe amendment under consideration was to extend the protection and blessings ofthe constitution and laws to a new class of persons. When they were made citizens they were as much entitled to the protection of the constitution and the laws as were the white citizens, and the states could no more deprive them of privileges aud immunities than they could citizens of the white race. Citizenship eptitled them to the protection of life, liberty,

pressed have been. Tn al subCtan,,8 l,i0n .X construction and Irnr t F cUrFil wnh 'h constitution. Ii, Ämtan. f M1 high court the Vmi " dem n decision of that lOugiDg tO the Cl'lzer? n'tl "? ",UUl " rest tot -their secH5" ,Le fla' 'ch.

hey states themIu the State ex r. 1 f'-i ot hers, 21 Ohio Stat ia . m vs. Met 'an and mat, nate uses the follou mo- i.f...T" up-eme Court cf tUlfÄ,,;;r;constltu. citify ,he youth or ? lu"',ut school DurooMe .1" . tie ior and to color. education i ,u . " " '-i'iie k : x 11 pin is . v. .. schools for - UIIUI court, t, too nrmiy eXuiKi 1 U.a'PlUonH of u1" cially disturbed. d tobe Judiclassifleiii nf me1 that ,he w dhor ring the tionof7hel Un K "ZTlsVul fou"rogated therehv ' d i8 turefore, abexistXas ,he3 t'LÄ'Y'"' ? "ver Ihey and ihe,?" r ght lo t he ,lp,0, red persons laws,' are se led b ,V,,ual F'lon of Ihe neither or IheseWete din, n.m nit-u'- bat "Ui.qu8iIouab:i or do we undent hat the contrary is 7v in ItltU claimed by counsel iu thi c-ise. liur up o'anua reueti on, in behalf iorDid Wl of sue I'p, Tvile im7nV.?,iiÄt1.! by he const t u ion of the coctu-rVnnii their local institutions aud atlaiTs as were never contemplated by this a, ..end men 1 Deer If ihisconstruc-iou becorrect, the clause bis no application to this cas., for all thi prlvile t s of the school system ofthu stt ;1 . - . solely from th'e ftmsUiun "aj d faof state. If he general as.se.noiy should ntss a awrep;ali g all laws er. all g a.Vd ruUtlng In? ?tem'1 oan t be claimed that u," utg amendment couM be interp sed to prevent o grievous an abridgement or the Privilegs rthS citizens or the state, for they would tne:Vbv be dep.ivei of pilvileges delved rrom "lie state Htid not of privileges derived from the CnU& But we need not now further dici-ss this point as the true meaning and exact limits of to?vedinemuqUe8U? B,e n-teueärTlyS.nf volved iu this case. For, conceding th.ttne 14th amendment not enly provideTequal securities for an but guarantees equality ot Hghto ti ct zensof a state, as one ofthe pri th-ges of citizens or the United States, ü lemaii s lo be seen whether this privilege has been abridged in the case before us. The law In question ""nota.iemptto dep.ive colored pe sous of any rights. Uu the contrary, it rec--nlzes their right, under the consti.ution of the .v. "i""' common school advaniiu secures to them proportion of "the school thelr equal fuud. it uuij- regut.ties me mode in which this rhju shall be and manner enjoyed by all ciasse iw persons, ihe regulation I this r.ght nsc3 irum me neces-ity ol the case Undoubtfj?iyi A1. V'?"ld J8 d.0-.e ln a manner to promote u 1 u. crests 01 an. But this tasv must.of necesslty.be letl to the wisdom and discretion 01 some proper authority. The people have commuted it to the general assembly, and the presumption is that It has discharged its duty in accordance with 1 he best interest- or ad. At all events, the 1. glslative action is conclusive, unless it clearly infricges the provisions of the constitution " "At most, the fourteenth amendment only affords to colore! citizens an additional g. aranty of equality of dghts to that already secured by ti e conBtitullo:'. of the 6tate." "The question, the efoie, ander consideration Is the same that has. as we have seen, been heretofore determined in ihis state, that a classification of the youih of the state for school purposes, upon any basis which does not exclude either class from eq al sch ol advantages, is no iafringment of the equal rights of citizens secured bv the constitution ot the state. We have seen that the law, in ihe case before us, works no substantial inequality of school privileges between the chllareu of both classes in the locaiitv of the parties. Under the lawful regulation nf ennui educationsl privileges, the chi dren of each class are required tr attend the school provided for them, and to which they are u-ssigned by those having the official control of all. The plaintiff, then, can not claim that his privileges are abridged on the groimd of Inequality of scnool advantages for his children, nor can be decide where his children shall be Instructed, or w hat teacher shall perform that office, without obtaining privileges not enjoved by hite cl izens. tqualitv of rights does not involve the necessity of educating white and colored persons ln the same school any more than it does that ci educating ehilaren of ooth sexes ln the same school, or that different grades of scholars must be kept in the same school. Any classification which preserves substantially equal school advantages is not prohibited by eiiuer tbe state or federal constitution, nor would it contravene the provisions of either. There ts. (hen. no ground upou which the plaintiff can claim that his rights , onder the 14th amendment have been infringed." The foregoing opinion, having been rendered since the ra ificatioa of the 14th amendment, is directly ln point and is entitled to great weight and consideration, coming as it does from a court distinguished for iu learning and ability. RIGHTS OF THE STATE. How far, then, have these amendments operated to change the constitution of Indiana, or imposed limitations or restrictions upon the sovereign power of the stater We answer in the following particulars: 1- The state can not in the future, while a member of the Federal Union, change her constitution so as to create or establish slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crimes whereof the party shall have been convicted thus protecting the new class of citizens,!, e , negroes and mulattos, from being agal n red need to e I a very. 2. Ths state can 1 ot deny to, nor deprive a citizen ofthe United Spates, 1. e., any negro or mulatto, of those national rights, privileges or immunities which belong to him as such citiz-n . 8. The state must recoe-nii n ttcitizen oi the United SUtes, i.e., any negro or mulatto, who is or becomes a bona fide resident -irs LS 4. The state must give to such. l. tn inch n a. gro or mulatto who is or who becomes a bona fide resident therein, the same rights, privileges and Immunities secured by her const ituiiou and laws to her other, i. e., to her white citizens. In our opinion. such amendments have not ln any other renoect imposed restrictions or limitation upon the sovereign power f the state. romthIsit results that there is no l.mltatlon upon the power of the state, within the limits of her own crnstltutlon. tn flx.soonro .-. n-.tn. the rights, privilege and immunities of her citizens as such, of whatever race or color they may be, so as to secure her own internal peace, prosperity and happiness. This will preserve in their nnrltvanri vlmrth. structure and spirit of om complex system of government, as it came from the hands of the great and illustrious men. who schbvwi our in. dependence and formed our ma'cbless form of government. Anteiior to the adaption of the federal constitution, the states existed as independent sovereignties, possessing supreme and absolute power over ail Questions of local and Internal government. To the states the whole charge of, interior regulation is left by the federal constitution, to them, and to the people ther. of; all powers not expressly, or by necessary implication, delegated to the national government and not prohibited to the states are reserved to the states. The constitution of the Unilrl stato to tt bond that binds the states iu one federal union. It formed and provkled the agencies for th nan tinuanceand management of tin? federal coy-

have hnrmfo." . J. -."u protection w. ere t

selves wun the

colored ,h, ISM ..V, t m SuM"i

1 ms n voi ves the inquiry as to what r.rivi leges or immunities nre embrace.! . , ,1, tJ.l W tion of ihi-j clause. We are not a ware that tio'; has as yelbeen Judicially se't irf ii s

'-- i'ii 11. Htiiriiii