The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1883-10-27
Full Text of The Decision.


States VS.. Murray Stanley. from
the United States Circuit Court
for the District of Kansas: No. >
the United States VS.. Michael Ry.
an, from the United States Cir.
cunt Court for the District of Cal
atornla; No. 3, the United States
VS.. Samuel Nichols, from the Uni
ted States Circuit Court for the
Western District of Missouri: No.
70, the United States VS.. Samuel
ID. Singleton, from the United
States Circuit Court for the South.
ern District of New York, and No.
Is Richard a. Robinson and wife
VS.. the Memphis & Charleston
Railroad Company, from the Uni
ted States Circuit Court for the
District ofTennessee. These eases
were all based on the first and
second sections of the civil rights
act of 1877, and were respectively
prosecutions under that act for
not admitting colored persons to
all the accommodations aud priyi.
leges in inns and hotels, in rail.
road ears and theaters. The de.
tense set up in every case was the
alleged unconstitutionality of the
law. The first aud second see.
tions of the act, which were the
parts directly in conflict, are as
follows:
SECTION |. That all persons
within the jurisdiction of the Uni.
ted States shall be entitled to the
full and equal enjoyment of the
accommodations, advantages, "a
cilities and privileges of public
conveyances on land and water,
theaters and other places of pub.
lie amusement, subject only to
the conditions and limitations es.
tablished by law, and applicable
alike to citizens regardless of any
previous condition of servitude.
The second section provides
that any person who violates the
first section shall be liable to
forfeit of $500 for each offense, to
be recovered in civil action, and
also to a penalty Of from $500 to
$1,000 fine or Imprisonment of thir-
ty days, to be enforced in crimi-
nal prosecution. Exclusive juris-
diction is given to the District
and Circuit Courts of the United
States in cases arising under the
law.
THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
claimed BY aud denied to c0lOred
persons in these eases were full
and equal accommodations in ho
tells, the ladies' cars on railway
trains and in the dress circle in
theaterr. The court, in long and
carefully prepared opinion by jus
tice Bradley holds
First.-That Congress had no
constitutional authority to pass
the sections in question under the
thirteenth and fourteenth amend
ment of the constitution.
Second.-Tlat the fourteenth
amendment is prohibitory in States
Only, and that the legislation au-
thorized to be adopted by Con-
gress for enforcing that amend
ment is not direct legislation on
matters respecting which States
are prohibited from making or en-
forcing certain laws ordaining GER
tain acts, but is corrective leglsla-
ton necessary or proper for coun-
teracting and redressing the ef-
fects which the law enacts; that
in forbidding States, for example,
to deprive any person OF life, lib
erty or property without due pro-
cess of law, and giving Congress
power to provide a due process of
law for the protection of life, lib
erty and property, which would
embarrass almost all subjects OF
legislation, but to provide modes
of redress for counteractlng the
operation and effect of State laws
obnoxious to prohibition that the
thirteenth amendment gives pow
er to Congress to pass the Sec
tions referred to, because that
amendment relates only TO slavery
and involuntary servitude, which
it abolishes, and gives Congress
the power to pass laws for its en-
forcement; that this power only
extends to the subject matter OF
the amendment itself, namely, sla-
very and involuntary servitude
and the necessary incidents and
consequences of those conditions;
that it has nothing to do with the
different
RACES
but only refers to sla very, the le-
Gal equality of the different races
and classes of citizens being pro-
vide,l for in the fourteenth amend