New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-08-27
COURT RECORD.

L
COURT RECORD.
SATURDAY, AUGUST &c, 1876.
United States Supreme Court.
The following was promulgated August %
Joseph A. Walker, plaintiff in error, vs.
Charles s. Sauvinet.-In error to the Su
preme Court of the State of Louisiana
This is an action brought by Sauvine'
| against Walker. licensed keeper of q
cOffeeh0use in New Orleans, for refusing
to furnish refreshments when called for
on the ground that he was q man of color
Article thirteen of the constitution of Lou
isiana provides that
"All persons shall enjoy equal rights and
privileges upon any conveyance of public
character; and all places of business, or of
public resort, or for which license is re-
quired by either State, parish or municipal
authority, shall be deemed places of public
character, and shall be open to the accom-
mediation and patronage of all persons,
without distinction or discrimination on
account of race or color"
On the twenty.third of February, 1869,
an act was passed by the General Assembly
of the State, entitled IAN act to enforce the
thirteenth article of the constitution of this
State, and to regulate the said thirteenth
article" Section three of this act is as fol-
lows:
ed by this State, and by all parishes and
municipalities therein, to persons engaged
in business or keeping places OF public re-
sort, shall contain the express condition
that the place of business or public resort
shall be open to the accommodation and
patronage of all persons, without distinc-
ton or discrimination On account of race or
color, and any person who shall violate the
condition of such license shall, on convic-
ton thereof, be punished by forfeiture of
his license, and his place of business or
shall be liable at the suit OF the person ag-
grieved to such damages as he shall sustain
thereby, before any court of competent
Jurisdiction"
On the twenty-seventh of February, 1871,
another act was passed, entitled IAN act to
regulate the mode of trying cases arising
under the provisions of article thirteen OF
the constitution of Louisiana, or under any
acts of the Legislature to enforce the said
and to regulate the license therein men,
toned" Section one and two of this act
are as follows:
"SEcrIoN l. Be it enacted by the Senate
and House OF Representatives of the State
of Louisiana in General Assembly con-
vened, That all cases brought for the pur-
pose of indicating, asserting or maintain
ing the rights, privileges and immunities
guaranteed to all persons under the pro-
visions Of the article thirteen Of the consti-
tuition of Louisiana. or under the provisions
of any acts of the Legislature to enfore the
said article thirteen, and to regulate the
licenses therein mentioned, or for the pur-
poses of recovering damages for the viola.
ton of said rights. privileges and immuni-
ties, shall be tried by the court, or by .
jury, if any party to the suit prsys for q
trial by jury.
the Jury do not agree, or fail to render YER
dict either for the plaintiff or defendant,
the jury shall be discharged, and the case
shall be immediately submitted to the
Judge upon the pleadings and evidence on
file, as if the case had been originally tried
without the intervention of jury; and it
shall be the duty of the judge. to decide the
case at once, without any further proceed
ings, arguments, continuance or delay, each
party having the right to appeal to the Su.
preme Court in all cases where an appeal is
allowed by law"
Walker, in his answer, denied all the al
legations in the petition, and prayed for q
trial by Jury. The cause was thereupon
tried by jury, who failed to agree. This
having been entered upon the minutes,
Sauvinet, by his counsel, moved that the
court proceed to decide the case under the
provisions of section two of the act of 1871.
To this Walker objected. alleging for cause
that the act was unconstitutional, but With
out specifying in what particular. Time
was given counsel to file briefs upon the
constitutional question, and at later day,
after consideration, judgment was rem
dered against Walker for $1,000. That judg.
ment was affirmed upon appeal to the Su-
preme Court of the State, and this court
is now called upon to re-examine the judg-
ment of afirmance. So far az we can
discover from the record, the only Federal
question decided by. either one Of the courts
below was that which related to the right
Of Walker to demand trial by jury. not.
withdrawing the provision OF the act of
1871 to the contrary. He insisted that he
had a constitutional right to such trial,
and that the statute was void to the extent
that it deprives him of this right All ques-
tions arising under the constitution of the
State alone are finally settled by the judg-
ment below. We can consider only such "a
grow out of the constitution OF the United
States. By article seven of the amedments
it is provided that Gin suits at common
law, where the value in controversy
shall exceed $50 the right Of trial by
jury shall be preserved" This, as has been
many times decided, relates only to trials
in the courts of the United States. led
wards vs.. Elliot, 81 Wall, ST. The States,
so far as this amendment is concerned, are
left to regulate trials in their own courts in
their own way. A trial by jury in suits at
comraon law pending in the State courts is
not, therefore, q privilege or immunity of
national citizenship which the States are
forbidden by the fourteenth amendment to
abridge. A State can not deprive person
OF his property without due process Of law,
but this does not necessarily imply that all
trials in the State courts affecting the prop
erty OF persons must be by jury. This
requirement OF the constitution is met
if the trial is had according to the set
tied course of judicial proceedings.
(Murray's Lessee VS.. HObOken, L. g. 1. Co.,
l8 How, $780, Due process of law is process
due according to the law Of the land. This
process in the States is regulated by the law
of the State. Our power over that law is
only to determine whether it is in conflict
with the supreme law of the land, that is to
say, with the constitution and laws of the
United States, made in pursuance thereof,
or with any treaty made under the author
ity of the United States (article six of the
constitution). Here the State court has de-
cided that the proceeding below was in &C
c0rdance with the law of the State, and we
do not find that to be contrary to the con.
stitution, or any law or treaty of the United
States. The other questions presented by
the assignments of errors, and argued here,
can not be considered, as the record does
nat AN~x>AA