cted, any inhabitant of any
State or Territory to the deprivation of any right secured
or protected by this act, or to different punishment, pains,
or penalties on account of such person having at one time
been held in a condition of slavery or involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, or by reason of his
color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of
white persons, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and,
on conviction, shall be punished by fine not exceeding
$1,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both,
in the discretion of the court.' This section seems to be
designed to apply to some existing or future law of a State
or Territory which may conflict with the provisions of the
bill now under consideration. It provides for counteracting
such forbidden legislation by imposing fine and imprisonment
upon the legislators who may pass such conflicting laws, or
upon the officers or agents who shall put, or attempt to
put, them into execution. It means an official offense, not
a common crime committed against law upon the persons or
property of the black race. Such an act may deprive the
black man of his property, but not of the right to hold
property. It means a deprivation of the right itself, either
by the State Judiciary or the State Legislature. It is
therefore assumed that, under this section, members of State
Legislatures who should vote for laws conflicting with the
provisions of the bill; that judges of the State courts who
should render judgments in antagonism with its terms; and
that marshals and sheriffs, who should, as ministerial
officers, execute processes, sanctioned by State laws and
issued by State judges, in execution of their judgments,
could be brought before other tribunals, and there subjected
to fine and imprisonment for the performance of the duties
which such State laws might impose.

"The legislation thus proposed invades the judicial power of
the State. It says to every State court or judge, If you
decide that this act is unconstitutional; if you refuse,
under the prohibition of a State law, to allow a negro to
testify; if you hold that over such a subject-matter the
State law is paramount, and 'under color' of a