The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-12-13
ITO be reported
Civil Rights-Ejectment From Train
sMoor vs.. KENTUCKY cESrRAL RAILROAD
TUcKY. AUGUST, 1882.

Civil Rights Bill-Ejecting Celored PersO
from Train.-The plaintiff, negro woman
having purchased o frst-elass railroad tiekei
was denied admission 20 the ladies' ear OF tn
. train, and, on refusing accommodations II
other coaches and refusing her iickst, was n
moved from the train. She brought an action
in damages under the Civil Rights Bill o
March ], 1876. Held on demurrer, that Con
gress had no power to protect the right al
legged 10 have been violated, and that the Fed
eral Court had no jurisdiction to entertain
the action.
This is an action brought by negr;
woman under the Civil Rights Act of Marcel
l, 1875. She alleges that she purchased I
first class ticket over the defendants roac
from Paris to Lexington, Kentucky, bu
was refused admission to the ladies car OF
account of her race and color; that refusing
to accept accommodation in the Other
coaches, and refusing to give up her ticket,
she was forcibly removed from the train.
| On demurrer to petition.
J. w. Stevenson, for demurrant.
| Bateman & Harper, for plaintiff.
| Barr, j., in delivering the opinion of the
court, said: The defendant had no right
under its charter to give plaintiff, ii in fact
| it did give, accommodations on its trains
which were inferior to those given white
persons, because of her race and color; and
if she refused to accept such inferior accom-
modations, aud was in consequence put off
the train, she is. l think, entitled upon
common law principle to recover damages.
But is not that fact reason, if there were
none other, why plaintiffs cannot come into
this court with their action? In other
words, can Congress give this court juris-
diction over this SUI Eject, and between citi-
zens OF the same State, unless Kentucky
has, by its laws or through its officers or
agencies, denied to plaintiff the equal pro-
lection of the laws, or abridged her "priv-
ileges or immunities" as a citizen of the
United Statess
Wewill not determine whether the right
to travel over railroads in public cars, with
out discrimination on account of race or
co.or, is privilege pertaining to national
citizenship. But assuming that the right
to travel to and from the capital of the
nation, to and from postofice revenue
Office, n United States Courts, is a priv
ilege pertaining to national citizenship,
and that this includes the right to travel
in the usual public cOnveyances without
because of the citizens race
or color, still the inquiry remains. Has
this privilege been abridged by the State
or its agencies? Crandal! vs.. Nevada.
Wall. 35. The fourteenth and the other
are limitations upon the
powers of the States and to some extent an
of the powers of Congress. But
the enlargement of the powers of Congress
are for the purpose and to the extent only
Of enforcing the limitations placed upon
the power of the State. If, therefore, a |
S ate has not attempted by its laws, officers, |
or agencies to overstep these limitations. |
no case arises for the exerc Sc of the pro- |
tectng aud guarant eing power ofthe nation |
al government.
The declaration "that all persons born or |
in the United States, and sub. |
ject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens |
Of the United States, and of the State |
wherein they reside" does not, of itself, | |
think, give Congress the power to declare
that the federal courts shall have exclusive
Iy, or concurrcntly with the State Courts,
original jurisdiction to protect the rights of
National and State citizenship. IF this has
been the intention the subsequent inhibi-
lions upon the State would have been en-
,ireiy unnecessary.
The Supreme Court, prior to this declara-
ion, had decided that citizenship of per-
iOn born in the United States could only
,ome through a State, and that person of
African descent, though born in one of the
United States could never become citizen
If that State. Dred Scott v. Sandford 10
How. 393. This declaration in the amend
nent changed this, and by broad declara-
ion made all persons, whatever their race,
,Olor, or previous condition born in the
United States, and subject to its jurisdic-
ion, citizens of the United States, and of
he State whereof they reside. Slaughter
house Cases, 16 Wall. 67. But this delara-
ion did not of itself give Congress the
'ower to protect by legislation the rights
to State or National citizenship.
The power of Congress to protect the Ma
ional citizen in his privileges and immu-
lities, and all persons in certain fundamen-
al rights, is given in the subsequent part
# the clause, and this protection is from
he action of the States or of its agencies,
nd not from the acts of individuals, uuless
Individuals act by or through State authori-
y. Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339. If
he mere declaration of citizenship gives
he power TO Congress, under the fifth sec
ion of this amendment, to protect from the
cts of individuals the rights pertaining 10
he citizenship therein declared, this power
must extend to protecting the rights per-
aiming to State as well as National citizen
hip, as there is no distinction in the declar-
tion of citizenship. / conclude, therefore,
8 there is no allegation in the petition
hat the State of Kentucky has denied the
'laintif the equal protection of its laws, or
made or enforced any law which abrdges
Ter privileges or immunities as a citizen ofI
he United States, nor is there, in fact, any
uch law or denial of protection known to
ne, the all important Jurisdiction fact to
i've this Court Jurisdiction is wanting, and
he demurrer must be sustained and petit
ion dismissed.
Petition dismissed.