Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-10-16
The CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.
JUSTICE BRADLEY DECIDES TT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL

ONCONS IIIO IlONAL
/ Justice Harlan Dissents fron, +ha
OpiniOn-rh Sections not Autbor;zed
Dy Either the Thirteenth or Fourteenth
Amendments-The Decisio-. AppIica-
Die to the States Only.
WARRINGTON, Oct. 1.-THE most i'm
portant decision rendered by the Supreme
/ court of the United States to-day was
lhat IN the hve cases commonly known as
the civil rights cases, which were submit
/ ted to the court on printed arguments,
about year ago. The titles of these
cases and the States from which they
I come are as follows: No. 1. The United
! states against Murray Stanley, from the
/ United States Circuit Court for the Dis
/ trlct Of Kansas. No. >. The United
/ states against Michael Ryan, from the
united states Circuit Court for the Dis
\ trict OF Colorado. No. 3. The United
/ states against Samued Nichols, from the
! United States Circuit Court for the West
ern District Of Missouri. No. 26. The
United States against Samuel D. Single
ton, from the United States Circuit Court
! for the Southern District of New York.
and No. %, Richard A. Robinson and wife
against the Memphis and Charleston
Railroad, from the United States Circuit
Court for the District of East Tennessee.
/ These cases were all based on the first
and second sections of the civil rights
act OF 1919, and were respectively prose-
cutl0ns under that act for not admitting
certain colored persons TO equal accom-
modations and privileges in inns or hotels.
IN railroad cars and in theatres. The de-
tense set up in every case was the al
leSed uncOnStltutiOnality of the law. The
first and second sections of the act. which
were the parts directly in the contrO-
Versy, are as follows
SECTION l. That all persons within the
jurisdiction of the United States shall be
! entitled to full and equal enjoyment ofthe
! accommodations, advantages, facilities
ana privileges OF inns and public convey
ances on land and water, theatres and
other places of public amusement. sub
Ject only to conditions and limitations
established by law and applicable alike
to citizens Of every race and color. re-
gardless OF any previous condition of
servitude.
The second section provides that anv
person who violates the first section shall
be liable to forfeit of 5000 for each
! 0ttense, to be recovered III civil action.
and also to the penalty of from $500 to
Sl,OUO line, or Imprisonment from 30 daYS
to year, to be enforced in Grim
inal prosecution. Exclusive jurisdiction
is given to the District and Circuit Courts
of the United States in cases arising un-
der the law.
The rights and privileges claimed by
and denied to cOlOred persons in these
cases were full and equal accOmmOda-
tiOns in hotels, in ladies' cars on railroad
trains and in the dress circle in theatres
| The court in long and carefully pre-
pared opinion by Justice Bradley holds:
First. That Congress had no constitu-
tiOnal authority to pass the sections in
question under either the Thirteenth or
Fourteenth amendments of the Constitu-
tiOn.
Second. That the Fourteenth amend
ment Is prOhibitOry upon the States only,
and that the legislation authorized to be
adopted by Congress for enforcing that
amendment. is not direct legislation on
matters respecting which the States are
/ prohibited from making or enforcing cer-
| tain laws or doing certain acts, but is
| corrective legislation necessary or proper
/ for cOunteracting and redressing the
| effect of such laws or acts forbids
State, for example, to deprive any
| person Of life, liberty or property with
/ out due process of law, and giving Con-
| gress powers to enforce its prohibition. 1t
/ was not intended to give Congress power
/ to provide due process of law for the pro-
/ lection of life, liberty and property, which
/ would embrace almost all subjects of
legislation, but to provide modes of re-
/ dress for cOunteracting the operation and
| effect of State laws obnoxious to prohi-
/ bitiOn.
Third. That the Thirteenth amendment
| gives no power to Congress to pass the
/ sections referred to, because that amend
ment relates only to slavery and involun-
tary seryitude, which it abOlishes and
| gives Congress power to pass laws for its
| enforcement; that this power only eX-
! tends to the subject matter of the amend
I ment itself, namely, slavery and inYOlun-
/ tary servitude and the necessary Incl
/ dents and consequences of those cOndi-
| tiOnS; that 1t has nothing to do with the
different races or colOrs, but only refers
to slavery, the legal equality of different
| races and classes of citizens being pro-
vided for in the Fourteenth amend
ment, which prohibits the States
| from doing anything to Interfere with
! such equality; that it is no infringe
ment of the Thirteenth amendment
| to refuse TO any person equal accOmmO-
! datiOnS and privileges of an inn or places
of public entertainment, however it may
be violation of his legal rights; that it
imposes upon him no badge of slavery or
| involuntary servitude which imply some
! sort of subsection of one person to another
and incapacity incident thereto, such as
inability to hold property, to make con-
! tracts, to be parties in court, ETC., and
that if the original civil rights act which
| abolished these incapacities might be
| supported by the Thirteenth amendment,
it does not therefore follow that the act of
1879 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 is unlimited, and it does not
| undertake to decide what Congress might
| or might not DO under its power to regu-
late 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 and second sec
| tions of the act of Congress of March l.,
| 1915, entitled IAN act to protect all cit-
zens in their civil and legal rights are
unconstitutional and void, and that judg-
ment should be rendered upon the indict-
ments accordingly.
At the cOnclusiOnOf the reading of
Justice Bradley's opinion, which Occu-
pied more than an hour, Justice Harlan
said that under ordinary circum-
stances and in an ordinary case he
I should hesitate to set up his idiyidual
opinion in opposition to that of his eight
colleagues, but in view of what he thought
the people of this country wished to ac-
cOmplIsh, what they tried to accomplish
and what they believed they had accom-
plished by means of this legislation, he
must express his dissent from the opinion
of the court. He had not had time since
hearing that opinion to prepare a state
ment of the grounds OF his dissent, but he
should prepare and file one as soon as
possible, and in the meantime had decided
to put on record this expression of his in
dividual judgment.
WAR LEGISLATION INVOLVED.
The Florida Election Case of Gale and