Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1875-03-26
JUDGE EMMONS'S DECISION.
Opinions OfTwO Leading I0uFnaIs-The
civil Rights RIII Regarded as
sqaeIched.
Nothing now Left to be Done but 10
Secure the IndSrsement of the su-
preme Court Of the United
States.

very threshold of his court, and gives it
| q blow the reverberations Of which are
already heard throughout the Union.
| That Judge EmmOns is Republican in
| politics, q northerner by birth, educa-
/ tion and life associations, and Is withal
an eminent jurist OF unsullied reputa-
| tion, gives peculiar force to bis views.
/ He meets the subject squarely, without
ifs or ands, declaring bluntly that the
| denial to negroes of theater or hotel
| privileges is not an Offense over which
| congress can give jurisdiction to Federal
courts. His line of reasoning, also, is
remarkably lucid and straightforward.
ALI citizens must look to the State for
protection against murder, arson, as
sault, trespass, fraud, libel, and
other serious offenses. So must
the negro likewise. How absurd
then is the civil rights act which would
protect him in the minor privileges Of
inns and theaters, and leave him unpro-
tected in the more important rights OF
person and property. Judge Emmons
holds that the vastness of civil and po-
litical rights included in the compendi-
Gus phrase, "the right to life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness" rests entirely
under State protection. This familiar
and unquestioned truism received uni
versal assent before the war, and there
is nothing in the pOSt-6eIltnl amend
ments affecting it. The thirteenth
amendment, says the judge, abolished
slavery, and nothing more. The four
teenth makes the negro citizen, and
secures him equal protection of the law
with other citizens. The fifteenth amend
ment relates exclusively to the right of
suffrage. The judge holds, further, that
these constitutional inhibitiOns are
aimed at the action of the State only,
and have no reference to individuals.
Louisville Courier-JouInal Of Wednesday,
Although the charge of Judge EN-
mons to the grand jury OF the United
States court st Memphis, on Monday
last, has not the authority of a decision
rendered by the court in a given case,
yet as the first judicial exposition of the
civil rights bill, it is of very great i'm
portance. His charge goes to the very
root of the new law, and knocks all of
its foundation from under it. The grand
jury inquired if they must, under the
civil rights act, find an indictment if
their attention should be brought to the
fact that q negro had been denied the
full enjoyment of the accommodations,
advantages, facilities and privileges of
. sponded that such denial is not an Of |
fense over which congress can give the |
United STates courts jurisdiction, as they |
are matters which the State govern |
ments alone control. From the abstract |
of the charge which appeared in cur |
dispatches yesterday it appears that |
Judge Emmons drew the line between |
State and Federal authority as indicated |
in the original constitution and the /!
earlier amendments, and which |
excluded from Federal cognizance the |
rights sought to be regulated by the civil |
rights act, and proceeded to inquire |
whether the recent amendments had |
revolutionized the character OF our gov
eminent in this respect. Before answer |
ing this inquiry the judge presented the
logical consequence of the validity of |
the civil rights act in this way: II con- |
gress has the power of regulating the |
theater and other places of amusement, |
and the inns, this necessarily involves |
the power OF protecting the more sacred |
and important rights Of the colOred |
citizens, and if congress may prescribe |
a penalty for a violation of the rights
specified in the act, it may provide a
punishment for murder, arson, assault |
and battery, trespasses, frauds, injuries
to reputation, and any other offense |
which is a violation of any of the rights |
heretofore considered as exclusively un-
der the guardianihip of State authority.
This would deprive the State of many
of the most important rights exclusively
reserved to them by the original con-
stitution; and it is this result more than |
the Objectionable nature of the enumer-
ated rights sought to be established
and regulated, that gives peculiar i'm
portance to the civil rights act. The
civil equality guaranteed by the four
teenth amendment is indicated in the
first section of that article, and if con-
gress had power to pass the act in ques-
ton that power must be found some.
where in the first section. The first
clause of that section simply defines
citizenship. The second clause declares
that no State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United
States. The effect of this clause is
manifestly only to make void any State
law that does attempt to abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States. AS the civil rights
law is aimed at the acts of individuals,
and not at State laws, the authority for
its enactment cannot be found in this
clause. The third clause provides that
no State shall deprive any person of
life, liberty or property, without due
process of lava prohibition which just
now seems to have no particular appli-
cation, unless it be to prevent any sum-
mary dealing with the kuklux under
the influence Of popular indigna-
ton against them. The fourth and last
clause of the first section Of the four
teenth amendment declares that no
State shall deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws, and it is in this, il in any part
of the constitution, we must find the
authority for the civil rights act. But
Judge EmmOns charged his grand jury
that this has no application to the sub
ject treated in the civil rights act, and
that both this and the preceding clause
are intended solely to prevent the arbi-
trsry deprivation of life, liberty and
property, and the establishment of tTi-
bunals and laws for one class of persons
without extending them to all; and
that, beyond ali controversy, they are
aimed at State action and have no
reference to individuals. The Slaughter
house cases, decided by the supreme
court Of the United States, and |
Justice Bradley's opinion, delivered |
at New Orleans, as we'll as Judge Bal
laTd's decisions on the enforcement act, |
had exactly the same drift. They were |
not delivered upon the provisions of the |
civil rights bill, but the analogies of the |
subjects were sufficiently close to indicate |
that, without modification OF recorded |
opinions, the chances were against the |
congressional doctrine of the protection |
OF civil rights. Judge Emmons has |
now perforated the civil rights act, and |
If there is anything in indications, the |
supreme court will knock the bottom |
out of it when it reaches that august tri.
bunal.
Cincinnati Enquirer, of Wednesday,
The earliest declaration of Unit I'd
States court touching the civil rights
bill comes from Judge Emmons, and
was made at Memphis on Monday. 1t
is in the form Of a charge to grand
jury with reference to that bill, and is
evidently in answer to a specific inquiry
from the jury as to whether or not The
fact that's a negro has been denied the
full and equal enjoyment OF accommo-