The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1883-10-25
STATE RlGRTS.
The Civil Rights Act Void Tbs
states have Rights which Com
gress is Bound To Respect.

WASHINGTON, d. c., Oct. Is, 18S3.-
The United States Supreme Court to-
day decided the five cases involving
the constitutionality of the so called
Civil Rights Law, approved March 8,
1875. These are United States VS. Stan
ley, United States VS. Ryan, United
States vs.. Nichols, Unittd States vs..
Singleton, and Robinson and wife VS.
Memphis and Charleston Railroad.
They are all prosecutions based under
this act for refusal to admit negroes to
equal accommodations. and privileges
in inns and hotels, admission to ladies
cars on railroads, and to parquette
seats in theaters.
The opinion of the Court was pro-
nonnced by Justice Bradley, and was
a mastery and unanswerable piece of
reasoning. There was All entire alb
sence of feeling or prejudice in the
position taken, but the eunconstitution-
ality and absurdity of the legislation
of Congress on this delicate question
was demonstrated SO clearly that men
will now wonder how such a law
could have been placed on the statute
book. An unusually large number of
the most eminent lawyers of this bar
were present, and all expressed admir-
atlOn OF tno opinion.
The Court holds the very important
opinion that the Fourteenth Amend
ment is prohibitAry on tho States only,
and that the legislation which it au-
thorizes in Congress is not direct
legislation on the topics where
States are prohibited from making GER
tain laws or doing certain acts, bat
corrective legislation, necessary for
counteracting and redI essing the effect
of such laws or acts by the States. Any
ether Interpretation would give to
Congress power to legislate on almost
all subjects, and practically abolish the
domain of State authority.
The Court also hold that the matter
complained of in the indictments have
no relation to the Thirteenth Amend
ment, and that the act of 1875 eau not
depend upon it for authority, The
decision is not applicable to the Dis
trict of Columbia or the Territories
but it is hardly probable that the
Courts will adopt for these different
rule applying to the relatious of the
| two races from that which will obtain
hereafter in all the States of the Union
According to this opinion, Legislation
on these subjects is remitted to the re.
spective State Government; but there
was good deal said today which
would serve to limit even the power o.
a State to pass such u silly and wicked
law as that of March, 1875.
In respect to railroad and common
carriers, the learned Judge said tha
the African could only claim such
equal and fair accommodation as coulC
be conveniently given, thus practical
ly denying his right to force himsel
! intn onu nart of in of h @
In respect to inns, hotels and theater
Judge Bradley said that the coloret
man had a right to build aud own inns
hotels and theaters, and that he woult
have a just right to complain if ther,
should be any legislation to compe
him to receive any class of persons
whom he did not desire to receive.
was obvious that if the black man hat
this right the white man had the sam,
privilege.
The opinion is marked by just re
lect for State and individual rights
and between the lines one may read ;
conviction that the folly of party zeal
OTIS cannot set aside the immutabl
laws of nature, and entirely abOlisl
the distinctions OF race, The decision
was concurred in by eight out of tn,
nine Judges who compose the Court
Justice Harlan dissented, but did no
state the cause of his dissent. The &C
Of March 3, 1875, is thus swept aside.
With the exception of Justice Fielt
the Court is composed entirely of Re
publican Judges, yet, under the solemn
ity of their official oaths, they hav.
gone as far in declaring the doctrine O.
State rights as have the most extreme
statesmen of the Democratic school
Verify, the world do move.