Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-09-09
Interesting necisinn-

IL VIII De remembered bldJ SnOTG
time since Justice Woods, of the United
States Supreme Court, rendered a de-
cision in a case under the act of Congress
known as the "Ku-Klux act" Certain
parties had been arrested and brought to
trial in the United States courts on the
charge of having interfered with certain
other parties in the exercise Of the elect
i've franchise. Judge Woods dismissed
the case on the giound that United States
courts had no jurisdiction. He held
that in all cases arising between citizens
of State, the State courts alone had
Jurisdiction, and the various amendments
to the Constitution did not give Federal
courts power to hear such cases unless
the State or its agents were party to
the trial
Another decision in which this princi-
pie is involved has been recently rem
dered by Judge Barr of the United
States Court for the Northern district of
Kentucky. 1t seems that one Belle
Smoot, a colored woman, sued the Ken
tuckv Central Railroad for damages, on
the ground that she was not permitted
to occupy a seat in the car reserved for
white ladies, but was shown to another
car-the one reserved for cOlOred people.
Judge Barr dismissed the case on two
grounds: First, that under the civil
rights act no civil suit can be brought for
damages. since violation of that
act Is misdemeanor punisha-
bic with fine and imprisonment;
| and second, because the proceedings
were between citizens of the same State,
and that the acts complained of were
committed by individual citizens of a
State and not by the State itself or its
agents, and that therefore his court had
no jurisdiction. His conclusions are
summarized as follows
"Sin ce the State of Kentucky had not
by its laws or its officers denied to the
! plaintiff the protection of law, or abridg
| ed her privileges as a citizen of the Uni
ted States, and since the proceedings
| were between residents of the same
| State. the United States court had no
Jurisdiction in the matter. The protec-
ton which Congress may afford to the ma
/ tional citizen is from the action of State
| or its agencies, and not from the acts of in
| dividuals. There is no distinction ID the
| declaration of citizenship, and if it is to
| be assumed that Congress has the power
under the fourteenth amendment to pro-
| tect rights of citizenship declared in
that amendment from the acts OF indi-
| viduals, then that power must extend to
protecting rights pertaining to State
| governments conclusion which the
| EXTREMIST advocates Of Capitalization
will hardly be willing to face. Thus,
since the State of Kentucky had not
abridged the rights of this plaintiff, her
| only recourse for civil damages was
suit at common law, in which she would
| be entitled to recover for whatever OF
| injury she had sustained.
1t will be seen that herein Judge Barr
agrees perfectly with Judge Woods, and
no doubt is expressed that should an APP
peal be taken to the United States
| Supreme Court both these Judges will
be sustained. Under these circumstances,
the very interesting question arises
whether those prisoners who have hereto
fore been tried in United States courts,
convicted and imprisoned in the Albany
penitentiary for violation of the Ku-
Klux act, were not unlawfullY tried,
convicted and imprisoned? If they
were, are they not entitled to damages,
and is there no way of recovery?
The limited jurisdiction of Federal
courts is another very important princi-
pie which has been settled by these deci-
sions. Ever since the war the inclina-
ton of United States Judges has been to
grasp power and usurp rights to which
they were not entitled. So far from being
| the great bulwark against the destruc-
ton of the principles of the COnsti-
tuition, the Federal judiciary has
too often been but plant tool in the
hands of the party of revolution and
Capitalization, and it is estimated that
fully nine-tenths of the cases which
| have arisen under the civil rights bill
have been tried in United States courts,
notwithstanding the fact that III no
State are there any laws in force author
| izing any discrimination on account of
race, color or previous condition. These
cases will, hereafter, have to be left to
| the State courts, and the Federal
| tribunals must remain satisfied with only
exercising the rights and powers &C
corded them by the Constitution. The
States should in future infexibly demand
| this, and determine that their rights shall
no longer be invaded. 1t is truly a
source of congratulation that in the
two instances noted the Federal courts
have recognized this principle, and it is
to be hoped it may be upheld by the
United States Supreme Court. Any
other is subversive of the very founda-
ton principles of the Constitution, and
certain to result eventually in the tri'
umph of Capitalization, and the under
mining of the Republic.