Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1883-10-18
4 CIVIL RIGHTS DECISION.

| An important decision was rendered by
the Supreme Court of the United States last
Monday, in five cases commonly known
as the Civil Rights cases, which were sub
mitted to the Court on printed argument
about year ago. The titles of these cases
and the States from which they come are as
follows: No. l, the United States against
Murray Stanley, from the United States
Circuit Court, for the District of Kansas; No.
3, the United States against Michael Ryan,
from the United States Circuit Court, for
the District of California ; No. 3, the United
States against Samuel Nichols, from the
United States Circuit Court, for the West
ern District of Missouri ; No. 26, the United
States against Samuel d. Singleton, from
the United States Circuit Court, for the
Southern District Of New York; and No. %,
Richard A. Robinson and wife against the
] Memphis and Charleston Railroad Compa-
ny, from the United States Circuit Court,
for the District of Tennessee.
| 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 Recommendations and privi-
leges in inns or hotels, in railroad cars and
in theatres. The defence set up in every
case was the alleged unconstitutionality Of
the law.
| The first and second sections Of the act,
which were the parts directly in controver-
sy, are as follows:
| Section l. That all persons within the ju
risdictiOn of the United States shall be en-
titled to full and equal enjoyment of accom-
modations, advantages, facilities and privi-
leges Of inns, public conveyances on land
and water, theatres and other places OF pub
lie amusement, subject only to the condi-
tions and limitations established by law and
applicable alike to citizens Of every race and
color, regardless Of any previous condition
of servitude.
The second section provides that any
person who violates the first section shall be
liable to forfeit $500 for each offence, to be re-
covered in civil action, and also to q penalty
of from $500 to 81 900 fine, or imprisonment
from thirty days to one year, to be enforced
by criminal prosecution. Exclusive juris-
diction is given to the District and Circuit
Courts of the United States in cases arising
under the law.
The decisions were rendered by Justice
Bradley. He decided that the first and sec
ond sections of the act are unconstitutional.
Justice Bradley took the ground that the
scope of the 18th and 14th amendments did
not extend to the social privileges sought to
be guaranteed by the legislation in question.
The court was unanimous with the eXcep-
ton of Justice Harlan, who said that under
ordinary circumstances he would be slow to
oppose his individual judgment to his COL
leagues, but this decision defeated what the
people intended to secure, and supposed
they had secured, and hence he must dissent
from the opinion. lie had not had time to
formulate his views, however, and would,
therefore, merely announce his dissent.
| Quite number of prominent lawyers
were within the bar to listen to opinions, in
Guiding the Attorney-General, and Senators
Bayard and Garland. The decision will ap-
ply to the five civil rights cases in the Court,
based on the first and second sections of the
civil rights act of March 1st, 1873. They are
respectively prosecutions under the act for
not admitting certain colOred persons to
equal accommodations and privileges in
|
The Court holds as stated, that Congress
had no constitutional authority to pass the
sections in question under the 18th and 14th
amendments of the constitution. The decis-
ion, however, is held to apply only to the
validity of the law in the States, and not in
the Territories or the District of Columbia,
where the legislative power of Congress is
unlimited The decision is the subject of
unusual comment in Washington, and it is
safe to say that no other decision of the
Court, since the famous Dred Scott decision
by Chief Justice Taney, has created so much
excitement and discussion.
The Adrertiser says: cat this term of
court Edgefield had no case of homicide,
and sends but two negroes t. the penlten-
tiary. Our virtue and peacesulness know no