Morning journal and courier., 1883-10-17
THE CIVM RIeaTs DECIs1oN.


 The decision of the Supreme court of the United States on the Civil Rights bill was rather surprising, though many good lawyers are said to have expected it. The decision rendered was that in the five cases, common ly known as the Civil Rights cases, whicE were submitted to the court on printed argu ments about year ago. These cases were all based on the first and second sections oi the Civil Rights act Of 1875, and were re spectivsly prosecutions under that act for mol admitting certain colored persons to equal accommodations in inns or hotels. in railroad cars and in theatres. The defence set up ir every case was the alleged unconstitutionalit9 of the law. The first and second sections oI the act, which were the parts directly in con- troversy, are as follows:
 Section That all persons within the jur isdiction of the United States shall be en- titled to the full and equal enjoyments of the accommodations, advantages, facilities priv ileges of inns and public conveyances on land and water, theatres and other places of pub- lie amusement, subject only to the eonii- tions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition ot servitude.
 The second section provides that any per son who violates the first section shall be lia- ble to forfeit $500 for each offence, to be re- covered In civil action, and also to 8 pen atty of from $500 to $1, ,000 fine and impris- onment from thirty days to year, to be en- forced in criminal prosecution. Executive jurisdiction is given to the District and Cir cult courts of the United States in cases sris- ing under the law.
 The Civil Rights act fyes based upon the Fourteenth amendment, which declares that ''no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abTidge the privileges or immu- mites of the citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ,
 Justice Bradley. who delivered the opinion, held: That Congress had no constitutional authority to pass the sections In question under either the Thirteenth or Fourteenth amendments to the constitution. That the Fourteenth amendment is prohibitoxy upon the State only, and that the Legislation authorized to be adopted by Congress for en- forcing that amendment is not direct legisla tion on the matters respecting which the States are prohibited from making or enforo ing certain laws or doing certain acts, but is corrective Legislation, necessary or proper or counteracting and redressing the effect o1 such laws or acts; that in forbidding the of life, liberty or property without due pro cess of law and giving Congress power to en- force the prohibition, 1t was not intended to give Congress power to provide due process of law for the protection of life, liberty snd property (which would embrace almost al subjects of legisiation) but to provide mode of redress for counteracting the operation ant effect of State laws obnoxious to prohibition That the Thirteenth amendment gaye nC power to Congress to pass the sections re ferred to, because that amendment relates tc slavery and involuntary so vitude, which il abolishes, and gives Congress power to pas laws for its enforcement; that this power only extends to the subject matter of thu amendment itself, namely, slavery and invol untary servitude, and the necessary inoident and consequences of those conditions. This decision will make but little real diff ference in the condition of the negroes, fol the Civil Rights act was never enforced Some of the Congressmen who are.in Wash ington are reported as saying that Republi can members this winter would move for an other ameDdInent insuring the rights whicl the Civil Rights bill was intended to secure Congressman Dayis of Illinois said that i would be the best issue the Republican l oould present for the presidential campaign as he takes 1t for granted that the Democrat will oppose it. Senator Harrison declsres that no law could now be passed by Oongres on this subject, and the only way to obtail l the end arrived at in MT. Summers pet meas l ure would be either by an amendment as pro posed by Mir. Davis, or by leaving the sub l ject entirely to the several States. It is ceE l tain that the matter can only be sffsctivel dealt with by the States