The Dickinson press., 1883-10-20
A SURPRISING DECISION
The United States supreme Court Pro
nounces the Civil Rights Act
Unconstitutional.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT


WASHINGTON, Oct. 15.-A most important
decision rendered by tho supreme court of the
United States was that in the five cases COM
monty known as the civil right cases, which
were submitted to the court on printed argu-
ments about a year ago. The titles of these
cases and States from which they come are as
follows:
No. l. United States against hurry Stanley.
From United States circuit court, district of Kansas.
No. 2. United States against Michael Ryan.
From United States circuit court, district of Cali
fornia.
No. 8. United States against Samuel Nichols.
From United States circuit court, Western district
No. &c. United States against Daniel D. Single
ton. From United States circuit court, Southern
district of New York.
The Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company.
From United States circuit court. district of Ten
uessee.
These cases we're 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-
constltutionaliry of the Law. The first and Sec
ond sections of the act, which were parts di-
rectly IN controversy, arc as follows:
First-All persons within the jurisdiction of the
United States shall be entitled to the full aud equal
enjoyment of accommodations. advantages, fare
ana privileges at inns. pubic conyeyances on land
aud water, theaters and other places of amusement,
subject only to conditions aud limitations eslaD-
lished 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 offense, to
of from $500 to ST, 900 fine, or imprisonment from
thirty days 10 a year, to be enforced III criminal pros
ecu ions. Exclusive jurisdiction is given to the dis
trict and circuit courts of the United States in cases
PRIVILEGES claimed by. and denied TO COLI
ored people in these acts, were full and equal
road trains, and in dress circles in theaters. The
court, i'll q long and carefully prepared opinion
by Justice Bradley, holds:
First-That congress had no constitution Il au-
tlorlty to pass the sections in question. under
either the Thirteenth or Fourteenth amendment
to the constitution.
Secoud-That Inc Fourteenth amendment is pro-
nibitory upon the States only. and that Legislation
referred to therein ast be adopted by congress for
enforcing that am sndment is not direct legislation
on matter respecting which States
tain laws ordering certain acts, but is corrective.
Legislation necessary or proper for counter
acting and redressing the effects OF such law
or laws that in forbiddiug States, for exam
pie. to deprive any person of their liberty or properly
without due process of law. and giving congress
power to enforce prohibition. il was otintended
W 6tNo SohSSCoo pohCL W ploSiu0 ouo piOCCnS VI
law for the projection of life, liberty. aud properly,
which would embrace almost all subjects
Of legislation, but to provide modes Of
and effect of State laws obnoxious to
| prohibition.
Thirl-That the thirteenth amendment gives
no power to congress to pass the sections referred
to because that amendment relates only to slavery
and involuntary servitude which it abolished and
gives congress power to pass laws for its enforce
ment. That this power only extends to the subj .ct
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 equal accom-
Im!odations and privileges in an inn or place of pub
his legal rights; that it imposes upon him no
badge of slavery or invo untary servltude, which is
Simply some sort Of s%ubjecton of one person to
another and incapacity incidental 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 amendment, it does
not therefore follow that the act of 1873 can be
supported by 1t.
Fourth-Thatt this decision affects only the valid
ries or District of Columbia, where the legislative
power of congress is unlimited, and it does not I'M
dertake to decide what congress might or might
" W uue " pOH6E W regulate commerce WIFI
foreign nations and amongst the several States, the
law not being drawn with any such power.
Fltth-That. therefore, it is the opinion of the
court that the first and second sections Of the act of
March l., 1875, entitled IAN act TO protect all citi-
zens in their civil and legal rights" are unconstitu-
tienal, and judgment should be rendered upon in
diciments accordingly.
At the conclusion of the reading of Justice
Bradley's opinion, which occupied moro 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
ton, he must express his dissent from the
opinion Of the court. He bad 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.