Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-01-23
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
IMPORTANT DECISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT.


Unwarranted-A Lucid OpiniOn-Con-
gress Without Power as Against In6i-
viduals.
W WASHINGTON, Jan. pa decision was
rendered by the Supreme Court of the
United States to-day in the important
constitutional case of the United States
against r. G. Harris ct al, brought here
upon certificate of difference of opinion
among the Judges of the United States
Circuit Court for the Western district of
Tennessee. The particular question pre-
sented here is the cOnstitutionality of sec
ton 5519 of the Revised Statutes. The
section is as follows:
elf two or more persons in any State or
Territory cOnspire or go in disguise ON the
highway or on the premises of another
for the purpose of depriving either directly
or indirectly, any person or class of per-
sons of the equal protection of the laws,
or of the equal privileges and immunities
under the law. or for the purpose of
preventing or hindering the constituted
authorities of any State or Territory from
giving or securing to all persons within
such State or Territory the equal protec-
ton of the law, each of such persons shall
be punished by a fine of not less than $500
nor more than $4,000, or by Imprisonment,
with or without hard labor, for not less
than six months nor more than six years,
or by both such fine and imprisonment"
The court holds, in an elaborate opinion
: by Mr.. Justice Woods, that this section
is not supported by the authority of the
Federal Constitution, and that its enact
ment was beyond the powers of Congress.
This is one of four or five So
called ''civil rights cases" which
were submitted to the court upon printed
briefs in the early part of the October
term of 1880. There were at the time a
number of vacancies on the bench of the
court, and, in view of the Importance of
the question involved, it was
thought best to set aside
the submission of these cases and order
them to be argued orally before the full
bench. When the present case came up
for hearing in November last, no counsel
appeared for the defendants. and instead
of being orally argued, it was again sub
mitted on behalf of the United States in a
printed brief of the Solicitor General. The
interests of the defendants, of the State of
Tennessee, were left without argument to
the care of the court, The facts out of
which this litigation arises, so far as they
are disclosed by the record and pleadings,
are briefly as follows:
Some time in the year 1877 four citizens
of Tennessee, supposed to be cOlOred men,
although not so described in the record,
were arrested by one Tucker. a Deputy
Sheriff, upon warrant issued by JUS
tice of the Peace, and held to answer GER
tain criminal charges, the nature of which
is not set forth. While in the custody of
the Deputy Sheriff these four prisoners
We're attacked by an armed body of men,
of whom the defendant Harris was one,
and so severely beaten, wounded and NAL
treated that p. NJ. Wells, one of their num-
Der, died from the effects of his in
juries. An indictment was found by
the grand jury against Harris
and his associates of the attacking party,
under section 5519 of the Revised Stat
utes, it charging them with conspiracy to
deprive the four prisoners above men,
toned of their right to the due and equal
protection of the laws of Tennessee, and
of their right to be protected from violence
while under arrest. The defendants de-
INJURED to the Indictment on the ground
First. That the OtfenSeS created bY sec
ton 5519 of the Revised Statutes are not
cOnstitutiOnally within the jurisdiction of
the courts of the United States, but are
cOgnizable by the State tribunals only; and
Second. That said section 5519. in so
far as it creates Offenses and imposes pen
alties, is in violation of the Federal Con-
stitutiOn, and an infringement of the
rights of the several States and of the
people thereof.
Upon the trial of the case the Judges of
the Circuit Court found themselves un-
able to agree as to the constitutionality of
the section of the Revised Statutes above
referred, to. and certified the question to
this court for decision.
After briefly stating the case, and say
ing that every valid act of Congress must
find in the Constitution some warrant for
its passage, Justice Woods proceeds to an
N of of ,IV he;
the Federal Constitution which can in
the remotest degree have reference to the
question in troversy-namely, section
, of article of the original Constitution,
and the thirteenth, fourteenth
and fifteenth amendments. Taking
these up in inverse order,
he briefly dispOses of the fifteenth
amendment by saying: ''It is clear that
the amendment can have no application
to the case, since it relates to- the right of
citizens of the United States to vote. 1t is
equally clear that the section in contro-
versy cannot be based on the fourteenth
amendment, since that has reference to
State action exclusively, and not to
any action of private individuals,
The language of the amendment does
not leave this subject in doubt when
state has been guilty of violation of its
provisions, when it has made or enforced
law abridging the privileges or immuni-
ties of citizens of the United States, or
when any one of its departments has de-
prived any person Of life, liberty or prop
erty without due process of law, or
denied to any person within it's
jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws. When, on the contrary,
the laws of the State, as enacted
judicial, and administered by its
executive departments, recognize and
protect the rights of all persons,
the amendment imposes no duty and con-
fers no power upon Congress. Section
5519 is not limited to take effect only in
case a State shall ahridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United
States or deprive any person of life,
liberty or property without due process
protection of the laws. 1t applies, no
matter how well the State may have per-
formed its duty. Under it private persons
are liable to punishment for cOnspiring to
deprive any one of the equal protection of
the laws enacted by the State.
''Since, therefore, the section of the Re-
vised Statutes under consideration is
directed exclusively against the action of
private persons, without reference to the
laws of the States or those laws as ad-
ministered by the officers of the State, the
court is clearly of the opinion that it was
not warranted by any clause in the four
teenth amentment to the constitution.
'The court has next to consider
whether the thirteenth amendment
furnishes authority for the enactment
of the law under review. This amend
ment declares that
"'Neither slavery nor involuntary servi-
tude, except as punishment of crime,
whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United
States or any place subject to their juris-
dictiOn.'
"'COngress shall have power to enfoace
this article by appropriate legislation
''DOes this amendment warrant the en-
actment of section 5519 of the Revised
Statutes? In the opinion of this court it
does not, and this conclusion is based on
the fact that the provisions of that section
are broader than the thirteenth amend
ment would justify. '
''There is only one other clause in the
Constitution of the United States which
can in any degree be supposed to sustain
the section under consideration, and that
is the second section of article 4. which
declares that citizens of each State shall
be entitled TO all the privileges
and immunities of citizens of the several
States. But this section, like the four
teenth amendment, is directed against
State action. 1t was never supposed that
it conferred on Congress power to enact a
law which would punish a private citizen
for an invasion of the rights Of his fellow
citizen conferred by the State of which
they were both residents, upon all its citi-
Zens alike.
''The court, as above appears, has been
unable to find any constitutional authority
for the enactment of section 5519 of the
Revised Statutes: The point in referehde