The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-10-18

shall be entitled to full and equal en-
yoyment, Recommendations advantages
facilities and privileges, in inns, anG
pubic conveyances on land and water
theaterS and other places of public
amusement, subject only to condition.
and limitations established by law
and applicable alike to citizens OF
every race and color regardless of an,
previous condition of servitude. The
second provides that any person who
violates the first section shall be liza
BILE to forfeit of 5000 for each of.
tense to be recovered in conviction
and also to penalty from $500 to
$1,000 or Imprisonment of thirty days
to year to be enforced in criminal
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 and denied
to colored persons in these eases were
full and equal accommodations in
h0telS, in ladies' cars on railway trains
AMI dress circles in theatres. The
court, in long and carefully prepared
opinion by Justice Bradley, holds,
first, that congress had no constitu-
tlonal authority to pass the sections
in question, under either the thir-
teenth or fourteenth amendments to
the constitution. Second, that the
fourteenth amendment is prohibitory
upon states only, and that legislation
authorized to be adopted by congress
for enforcing that amendment is not
direct legislation, as matters respect
ing which the states are prohibited
from making or enforcing certain
laws, or ordaining certain acts, but is
corrective legislation, necessary or
proper for counteracting and redress
Ing the effects of such laws or acts,
that IN forbiddlng states for example
TO deprive any person of life, liberty or
property without due process of law
and giving congress the power to en-
force prohibition. 1t 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
redress for counteracting the opera
ton and effect of state laws obnox-
ious to prohibition.
Third-That the thirteenth amend
pass the section referred to, because
that amendment relates only to
slavery and involuntary Servitude,
which it abolishes and gives congress
power to pass laws for its enforce
ment, and that its powers only ex-
tends to the subject matter of the
amendment itself-namely, slavery,
involuntary Servitude and the neceS-
sary Incidents in consequence of these
conditions; and that it has nothing to
do with the different races or colors.
1t refers to slavery and the legal
equality of the different races and
classes of citizens being provided for
by the fourteenth amendment, which
prohibits the states from doing any
thing to interfere with such equality;
that tbs not an Infringement of the.
thirteenth amendment to refuse to
any person equal accommodations and
privileges in an inn or place of public
entertainment, however it may be
violation of his equal rights; that it
imposes upon him no badge of slavery
or involuntary Servitude, which i'm
plies some sort of subsection of one
person to another and incapacitate in
cident thereto, such as inability to
hold property, to make contracts, to
be parties in court, etc.; and that if
the original civil rights act, which
abolished these incapacities, might
be supported by the thirteenth amend
ment, 1t does therefore follow that
the act of 1877 can be supported by it.
Fourth-That this decision affords
only validity in the states and not in
the territories or the District of
Columbia, where the legislative power
of congress is unlimited, and it does
not undertake to decide what congress
might or might not do under the
power to regulate commerce with for
eign nations and among the several
states, the law not being drawn with
such view.
Fifth-Tnat, therefore, it is the
opinion of the court that the first and
second section of the act of congress
of March l, 1877, entitled an act to
protect all citizens in their civil and
legal rights, are unconstitutional and
void, and judgment should be rem
dered upon the Indictment accord
ingly.
Justice Harlan will file dissent as
soon as he can prepare his statement.
The supreme court in a case to-day
declined to pass on the validity of the
law disqualifying ex-Confederates for
service on federal grand juries, but
gave the opinion that after the re-
Mobilization of the insurgent states,
general amnesty, ETC., there would
seem to have been no reason for the
continuance of the law.