The Dickinson press., 1883-10-27
DECISION OF THE supREMr COURT

utsSee.
These cases were all based on the first and
second sections of the civil rights act Of 1875
and were respectively prosecutions under that
act for not admitting certain colored persons
to equal accommodations and privileges in inns
or hotels, in railroad cars and in theaters. The
defense set up, in every case, the alleged un-
constltutionali'y of the law. The first and sec.
ond sections Of the act, which were parts di-
rectly in controversy, are as follows:
First-Al persons within the jurisdiction of the
United States shall be entitled to the tut and eoual
enjoyment of accommodations advantages. fare
anu privileges at inns. public conveyauces on land
and water, theaters and other places of amusement,
subject only to conditions aud limitations eslau-
iished by law, and applicable alike to citizens OF
every race aud color, regardless of any previous
condition of servituGe.
Secondary person who violates the first section
shall be liable to forfeit $500 for each ofense. to
be recovered in civil action, aud also to q penalty
thirty days TO a year. to be enforced in criminal pros
ecuiions. Exclusive jurlsdlc'ionis given to the dis
trict and circuit courts of the United States in cases
arising under the law. The rights and
ored people in these acts. were full and equal
accommodations in hotels, in ladies' cars on rail-
court, in q long and carefully prepared opinion
by Justice Bradley, holds:
Elrst-That congress had no constitution l au-
thority to pass the sections in question. under
either the Thirteenth or Fourteenth amendment
to the constitution.
Second-That, inc Fourteenth amendment is pro-
uibitory upon the States only. and that legislation
referred to therein as to be adopted by congress for
enforcing that amendment j.. not direct leg islation
on a matter respecting which Suites
are prohibited from making or enforcing GER
Legislation necessary or proper for counter
acting and redressing the effects OF such law
or avs that in forbidding States. for exam
without due process of law. and giving congress
power to enforce prohibition. ii was not intended
10 give congress powes to provide duo process of
" which would embrace almost all %subjact.
redress for eounteracting the operation
and eject OF State laws obnoxious to
Thirl-That the thirteenth amendment gives
no power to congress to pass the sections referred
and involuntary servitude which it abolished and
gives congress power to pass laws for its enforce
ment. Ihat this power only extends to the subj.c
matter of the amendment itself namely, slavery
and involuntary servitude and necessary incidents
and consequences those conditions: that it has
nothing to do With different races or color, but
refers to slavery. The legal equality of different
races, and classes of citizens being provided for in
the fourteenth amendment, which prohibits States
from doing anything to interfere with such equal
ity; that it is no infringement on the thirteenth
amendment to refuse to any person equll accom-
mI1odatlons and privileges in an inn or place of pub
lie entertainments however it may be a viola ion of
uAs AskdA LlsstSs thdt II imposes upon u!m no
badge of slavery or invo untary servltude. which is
simply some sort OF subjecton Of one person to
another and incapacity Incidental thereto, such as
INABILITY to hold property. to make contracts, to be
partlesl in court. &c, and that if the original civil
rights act. which abolished these incapacilies, might
be supported by the thirteenth amendment, it does
not therefore follow that the act Of 1875 can be
supported by 1t.
Fourth-Thatt this decision affects only the valid
tty Of the law in the States, and not in the Terrific
ries or District of Columbia, where the legislative
power of congress is unlimited, and it does not un-
not do under the power to regulate commerce with
foreign nations and amongst the several States, the
law not being drawn with any such power.
therefore, it is the opinion of the
court that the first and second sections Of the &C. OF
March l, 1875. entitie ed IAN act TO protect all citi-
zsns in their civil and legal rights" arc unconstitu-
tienal, and judgment should be rendered upon in
m lei accordingly.
At the conclusion Of the reading of Justice
Bradley's opinion, which occupied more than
an hour, Justice Harlan said, under ordinary
circumstances and in an ordinary case, he
should hesitate to set up his individual opinion
in opposition to that Of his eight colleagues,
but IN view OF what he thought the people of
this country wished to accomplish, what they
tried to accomplish and that they believed they
had accomplished by means of this legi-la-
zion, he must express his dissent from the
op Mon of the court. He had not had time
since hearing that opinion to prepare a state
ment of his grounds Of dissent, but he should
prepare and file one as soon as possible, and
in the meantime desired to put upon record
this expression of his individual Judgment