Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1883-11-03
THE C1yIL.R1GHTS DECISION.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS DECISION.
The Supreme Court Declares the Civil
Rights Act Contrary to the Constitution
comment of Prominent Colored Men
on the Decision.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15.-In the Supreme
Court Justice Bradley delivered the decision
| of the United States VS.. Samuel d. Single
{ ton, involving the constitutionality of the
act of Congress Of March 1, 1875, entitled:
Gan act to protect all citizens in their civil
and legal rights" He decided that the first
and second sections of the act are unconsti-
t%utional. Justice Bradley took the ground
that the scope of the Thirteenth and -Four
teenth Amendments did not extend to
the social privileges sought to be guar
anteed 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 that
they had secured, and hence he must dis
sent from the opinion. He had not had
time to formulate his views, however, and
would now therefore merely announce his
yers were within the bar to listen to the
opinion, including the Attorney-G General ana
Senators Bayard and Garland.
The decision will apply to the five civil
rights cases in that court based on the first
and second sections Of the Civil Rights aot
Of March 1, 1875. They are respectively
prosecutions under the act for not admitting
certain colored persons to equal accommo-
dations and privileges in inns and hotels, in
railroad cars and theaters. The court holds,
as stated, that Congress had no constitutions
al authority to pass the sections in question
under either the Thirteenth or Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution. The de-
cision, however, is held to apply only to the
validity of the law in the States and not in
the Territories or District of Columbia,
where the legislative power of Congress il
unlimited.
The decision is based on the ground that
In passing the act Congress usurped the
power which belongs exclusively to the State
Legislatures. The Thirteenth and -Four.
teenth Amendments give no power to Con-
gress, because the former only relates to
slavery, which it abolishes, having nothing
to do with different races or colors, and the
latter is prohibitory upon the States only,
aHdforbids them from making certain laws.
II they do make them, Congress is empow-
cred to make laws to counteract their effect,
and this is all the law Congress is able to
make on the subject. 1t has 10 authority to
directly legislate upon il.
Fred Douglass, when asked what lie
thought Of the decision, said: "It is dis
heartening, and l regard it as a step back
ward. The result will be mischievous. At
t,n oIOcn Nf <h1 ,.yrr orl So, ,:... - A.
services rendered by colOred men, there was
a disposition OH the part Of the country to
concede to them complete citizenship and
equal civil rights III the use Of all
public c~onveyances and institutions. 1
regarded this decision as a part of
the general reaction naturally fol-
lowing increased friendship between the
North and South, which comes of the dying
out Of the old controversy OH the subject Of
slavery. Nearly all the concessions the col
cred people have received have
been the result OF the antago-
nism of the two sections. I donot despair,
liberal spirit toward the colored peo-
pie. 1 think the decision confounds so
eial with civil rights. Social equality does
not result from riding OH the same
car with a man or buying goods at the same
store. The decision places the American
people far in the rear of the civilized ma
tons of Europe. The decision is contrary
to the Declaration Of Independence, the
spirit of Christianity, the spirit of the age,
and in violation of the Fourteenth and Fiji
teenth Amendments. 1t tends to weaken
the spirit of patriotism which the nation
may need in some hour of peril"
Prot. John Nj. Langston, Minister to
Hayti, is the man who drew, at the request
of Charles Sumner, the act of which the
two sections were declared unconstitutional.
He says: 81 am surprised and deeply dis
appointed at the decision, but, in fact, the
Civil Rights act gave us no rights which
we did not already have under
the Fourteenth Amendment. We lave
with or without the act equal rights in this
country, and the courts of the States should
give them to us. If they do not, then Con-
gress has power under the amendments to
legislate so that they will be compelled to
do so. The result, therefore, will be simply
to bring the matter before Congress again."
The decision Is the subject of universal
comment here, and it is safe to say that no
other decision Of the court since the famous
bred Scott decision by Chief Justice fancy
has created so much excitement and discus
sion.