r the nation. If the Government when imperiled has the
right to compel a citizen, whether white or black, to defend with
his blood the flag, that citizen, when imperiled, has the right to
demand protection from the Nation. The Nation cannot then say,
"You must appeal to your State." If the citizen must appeal to
the State for redress, then the citizen should defend the State
and not the General Government, and the doctrine of State Rights
then becomes complete.

--_The National Republican_, Washington, D. C., October 17, 1883.

JUSTICE HARLAN AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

_Question_. What do you think of Justice Harlan's dissenting
opinion in the Civil Rights case?

_Answer_. I have just read it and think it admirable in every
respect. It is unanswerable. He has given to words their natural
meaning. He has recognized the intention of the framers of the
recent amendments. There is nothing in this opinion that is
strained, insincere, or artificial. It is frank and manly. It is
solid masonry, without crack or flaw. He does not resort to legal
paint or putty, or to verbal varnish or veneer. He states the
position of his brethren of the bench with perfect fairness, and
overturns it with perfect ease. He has drawn an instructive parallel
between the decisions of the olden time, upholding the power of
Congress to deal with individuals in the interests of slavery, and
the power conferred on Congress by the recent amendments. He has
shown by the old decisions, that when a duty is enjoined upon
Congress, ability to perform it is given; that when a certain end
is required, all necessary means are granted. He also shows that
the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and of 1850, rested entirely upon
the implied power of Congress to enforce a master's rights; and
that power was once implied in favor of slavery against human
rights, and implied from language shadowy, feeble and uncertain
when compared with the language of the recent amendments. He has
shown, too, that Congress exercised the utmost ingenuity in devising
laws to enforce the master's claim. Implication was held ample to
deprive a human being of his liberty, but to secure freedom, the
doctrine of implication is abandoned. As a foundation for wrong,
implication was their rock. As a foundation for right, it is now
sand. Implied power then was sufficient to enslave, while power
expressly given is now impotent to protect.

_Question_. What do you think of