The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1883-10-16
Late News.
DETECTION.
Tive Sections of the Civil Rights Act
Decided Unconstitutional by the Su-
preme Court.

preme Court.
WASHINGTON. Oct. 16--The decision
rendered by the supreme court of The
United States yesterday in five civil rights
cases, are based on the first and second
sections of the civil right act of March
1st. They ate respectively prosecutions
under the act for not admitting certain
colored person to equal accommodations
and privileges in inns or hotels. in rail
road cars and theatres The court holds
that congress has no constitutional au
thority to pass the sections in question
under either the Thirteenth or Fourteenth
amendment to the constitution. The
decision, however. is held to apply only
to validity in states. and not in territories
or the District of Columbia, where the
legislative power of congress is unlimited
so far as the states are concerned. The
two sections of the law above referred to
are declared unconstitutional and void.
Justice Bradley rendered the opinion, jus
tice Harlan dissenting.
The titles of these cases and the states
from which they came, are as follows:
No. 1, United States VS. Murray Stanley,
from the United States circuit court, dis
Michael Ryan, from United States district
court, district of California; No. 3, United
States VS. Samuel Nichols, from the United
States circuit court, district of of Mis-
souri,; No. 26, United States VS. Samuel D.
Singleton, from the United Circuit court
for the southern district of New York,
and No. %, Richard A Robinson and
wife VS. the Memphis & Charleston Rail
road company, from the United States
circuit court of Tennessee. The defense
set up in every case was alleged unconsti,
tutionality of the law The first and
second sections of the act which were the
parts directly in controversy, are as fol
lows
Section |. That all persons within the
jurisdiction of the United States shall be
entitled to full and equal enjoyment,
accommodations, advantages facilities
and privileges of inns, public conveyances
on land and water, theatres and other
places of public amusement, subject only
to conditions and enactments by law and
applicable alike to any race and color
regardless of any previous conditions"
Section 2 provides that any person who
violates the first section shall be liable to
forfeit $500 for each offense, to be re
covered in civil action and also to a
penalty from $500 to 81 900 fine, or i'm
prisonment from thirty days to year, to
be enforced in criminal prosecution.
Exclusive jurisdiction is given the district
and circuit courts of the United States in
cases arising under the law The right
and privileges claimed by and denied to
colored persons IN these cases were full
and equal accommodations in hotels, in
ladies cars on railway trains and in dress
circles in the theatre. The court in their
long and carefully prepared opinion by
Justice Bradley holds; first, that congress
had ne constitutional authority to pass
the sections in question under either the
thirteenth or fourteenth amendment to
the constitution; that the fourteenth
amendment is prohibiting upon states
only, and that the legislation authorized
be adopted by congress for enforcing;
that the amendment is not direct le9isla
lion on matters respecting which the
states are prohibiting which states are
prohibited from making or enforcing the
common laws, or doing certain acts; but
is q correction of legislation that is neces-
sary or proper for counteracting and re
dressing the effects of such law or acts.
That in forbidding states for example, TO
deprive any person of liberty or property
without due process of law, and giving
congress power to enforce prohibition.
1t was not intended to-give congress the
power to provide the due process of law
for the protection Of life, liberty and
prosperity, (Which would embrace almost
all subjects of legislation) bu! To provide
modes of redress for counteracting the
operation and effect of state laws ohnox
ious to prohibition.
Third, that the Thirteenth Amendment
& yes no power to Congress to pass thC
sections referred to because that amend
ment relates only to slavery and involun-
tary servitude, which it abolishes ant
gives Congress the power TO pass laws fol
its enforcement; in this power only ex
tends TO the subject of the matter of thu
amendment itself, namely slavery and in
voluntary servitude and the consequences
of those conditions; that it has nothing t.
do with differ ent races or colors, but onl,
refers to slavery; the legal equality 0
the different races and classes of citizen
being provided for in the Fourteentl
Amendment, which prohibits the State
from doing anything to interfere witt
such equality. That it is an infringement
of the Thirteenth Amendment TO refus
to any person equal Accommodations an
privileges in an inn or place of public en-
tertainment. However. it may be viola
tive of his legal rights. that it imposes u
on him no badge of slavery or servitud
which imply some sort of subiection b
one person to another in the capacity in
cldent thereto, such as inability to hol
property, to make contracts, be partie
in court, ETC.; and that if the original ci
vii rights act, which abolished these inci
pacities might be supported by the Thil
teenth Amendment, it does not folio
that the act of 1874 eau be supported b
+ it,
Fourth, that this decision effects on
the validity of the law in States and n,
in Territories or in the District of Colun
: bla, where the legislative power of Coz
: gress is unlimited, and it does not under
y take to decide what Congress might {
: might not do under power to regula
. commerce with foreign nations, al
e amongst the several States, the law nj
s being drawn with any such rule.
n Fifth that tho first and second acts