The daily gazette., 1883-10-16
THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL
TT IS pGcLAaEO TO sE UN-
CONSTITUTIONAL.
JUsT1oEHARLAN ALONE D1sSEHTs
HOtel Keepers and Others no Longer
Liable te Prosecution for Refusing
Accommodations 20 Colored People.


WASHINGTON, Oct.s 16.--A decision was
rendered BY the Supreme Court OF the
United States to-day In Eve civil rigl To cases,
based on the first and second sections Of the
Civil Rights Act of March 1, 1875. They
are respectively prosecutions under the act
for not admitting certain colored persons to
equal accommodations and privileges In
Inns or hotels, In railroad cars aud In
theatres. The opinion, rendered by Justice
Bradley, Justice Harlan dissenting, is as
| follows:
First-Thst Congress had no constitu-
tional authority to pass the sections in ques-
ton under either the Thirteenth or Four
| teenth Amendment OF the Constitution.
Second-That the Fourteenth Amendment
ts prOhibitory upon the States only, and that
the legislation authorized to be adopted by
Congress for enforcing that amendment is
not direct legislation on the matters respect
ing which the etates are prohibited from
making or enforcing certain laws or doing
certain acts, but is corrective legislstio
necessary or proper for counteracting and
redressing the effect of such laws or acts;
that In forbldding the States, for example,
to deprive any person Of life, liberty or pro-
4 perty without clear process of law and CIV
ing Congress power to enforce the prohiib-
tion, IL was not intended to give Congress
power to provide due process Of law for the
protection Of life, liberty and property
| (Which would embrace almost all subjects
Of legislation), }, but to provide modes Of re-
dress Tor counteracting the operation and
effect of State laws obnoxious to the prohi-
bitiou.
Third-That the Thirteenth Amendment
gave no power to Congress to pass the sec
tions referred to, because that amendment
relates to slavery and involuntary servitude,
which It abolishee, and gives Congress
power TO pass laws for its enforcement; that
this power only extends to the subject mat
| ter OF the amendment itself, namely, slavery
and involuntary servitude, aud the neees-
sary incidents and consequences of those
conditions; that it has nothing to do with
different races or colors, but only refers to
slavery, the legal equality Of differ ent races
I and class Of citizens being provided fol In
the Fourteenth Amendment, which pro-
hibits the States from doing anything to in
terftre with such equality; that it is no In
fringement ofthe Thirteenth Amendment to
refuse to any person the equal accommoda-
tions and privileges OF an inn or place Of
|, | public entainment, however, 1t may be vio-
latiVe of his legal rights; that 1t imposes
upon him no badge of slavery or involuntary
servitude which imply some sort of subjec-
ton Of one person to another and the inca
pscity incident thereto, such as inability to
hold property, make contracts, to be parties
!
Rights act, which abolished these incapaci.
ties, might be supported by the Thirteenth
, Amendment, 1t does not therefore follow
, that the act Of 1875 can be supported by It
Fourth-That this decision affects only
! the validity Of the Law in the States, and
not In the territories or the District OF
Columbia, where the legislative power of
Congress IL unlimited, and it does not un-
i dertake to decide what Congress might OF
might not do under the power to regulate
commerce with foreign nations and amongst
the several States, the law not being drawn
with any such view.
Fifth-That, therefore, it is the opinion of
the Court that the first aud second sections
of the act of Congress of March 1, 1875, en-
titled, "An act to protect all citizens in their
civil and legal rights" are unconstitutional
aud void, and judgment should be rendered
upon the In iictments accordingly.
JUSTICE HARLAN's DISSENT.
At the conclusion of the reading of Jus
tice Bradley's opinion, which occupied more
than an hour, Justice Harlan said that under
ordinary circumstances and In an ordin .ry
case he should hesitate to set up his individ-
7 ual opinion In opposition to that of his eight
> colleagues, but, 10 view OF what he thought
the people of thus country wished to ac-
! complish, what they tried to accomplish and
> what they believed they had accomplished
} by means of this legislation, he must ex-
! press his dissent from the opini1n OF the
Court.
He had not had time since hearing that
! opinion to prepare q statement of the
grounds of his dissent but he should pre-
pare and file one as soon as possible, and In
the meantime desired to put upon record
this expression Of his individual Judgment.
Fred Douglass, Minister Langston, Pro-
feseor Greiner and other prominent colored
men agree In considering the decision mat
ter for regret. Douglass thinks it is a step
backward snd places the United States In
! the rear of the civilized nations Of Europe
9 and America. Its moral effect will, he
, thinks, be mischievous.
Minister Laugston, who says he drafted
the Civil Rights bill at the request of Mr..
Summer, says the only thing the colored
people IN the States can do when deprived
of their civil rights is TO bring an action
under the common law In the State courts.
The Civil Rights act, he says, did not confer
any rights upon the colored people, but
merely provided for the enforcem ant of laws
comforting those rights, and consequently
the decision of the court to-day did not take
away from the colored people any rights
: conferred by the Four'eenth Amendment.
-S~-S-a-0-SS-