The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-10-16
CIVIL-RIGHTS CASES.
IMPORTANT DECISION by THEsU.
PREME COURT.
The Act OF Congress Giving Equal Privileges
In Inns and Theatres and on Public Con-
vcyances Declared Unconstitutional and
void-Justice Harlan the Only Djssen,er.
IBy telegraph 70 the DIsnatch. |

| 10y F'HTdph ~ the DiSpatch.l
| WASHINGTON, ID. c., October 15.-The
most important decision rendered by the
supreme Court OF the United States to-
day was that in the five cases commonly
known as civil-rights cases, which were
submitted to the Court on printed argl-
ments about a year ago. The TITLES Of these
cases and the States from which they come
are as follows: No. /. The United States
against Murray Stanly, from the United
States Circuit Court for the District Of
Kansas; No. 2, The United States against
Michael Ryan, from the United States Cir
cult Court for the District Of California /;
No. 3, United States against Samuel Nichols.
from the United States Circuit Court for
the Western District o. Missouri; No. G,
| United States against Samuel ID. Sim
gletOn. from the United States Circuit
Court for the Southern District Of New
York; aid No. %, Richard a. Robin
son and wife against Memphis and
Charleston Railroad Company. from the
| United States Circuit Court for the Dis
trict OF Tennessee. These cases were all
based on the first and second sections OF
the ciyil-rightS act of 1915. and were re-
spectively prosecutions under that act for
not admitting certain cOlOred persons TO
|
inns or hotels, in railroad ears, and in the
aires. The defence set up in every case
was the alleged unconstitutonality OF the
law. The first and second sections OF the
act, which were the parts directly in con-
troversy, are rs follows:
" Section 1St. That all persons within
the jurisdiction Of the United States shall
be entitled TO full and equal enjoyment OF
lot n1X nd
privileges OF inns, public conyeyanccs on
| land and water. theatres, and other places
Of public amusement. subject only TO con-
ditons and limitations established by law.
and applicable alike 10 citizens OF every
race and color. regardless Of any previous
condition OF Scryiludc."
The second section provides that any
person who violates the first section shall
be liable to forfeit $500 for each offence. to
| he recovered in civil action. and also TO a
penalty Of from $500 TO 81 900 fine or inn
Drisonment from thirty days to one year,
10 be enforced in criminal prosecution.
Exclusive jurisdiction j. given TO the dis
trict and circuit courts OF the United
States in cases arising under the law.
The rights and privileges claimed by and
denied to cOlored persons in these eases
were full and equal accommodations in ho-
tells, in ladies' ears on railroad trains, and
in dress-circles in theatres.
The Court, in a long and carefully-prc-
pared opinion by Justice Bradley, holds:
| /. That Congress had no constitutional
authority TO pass the sections in question
under either the thirteenth or fourteenth
amendments Of the Constitution.
,. That the fourteenth amendment Is pro-
hibitory upon the States OILY, and that the
legislation authorized TO be adopted by
Congress for enforcing that amendment is
not direct legislation on matters respecting
which the States are prohibited from mat
king or enforcing certain laws, or doing
certain acts, but i corrective legislation,
necessary or proper for cOunteracting
and redressing the effect OF such
law or acts; that in forbidding States. for
example, TO deprive any person Of life.
liberty, or property without due process OF
law. and giving Congress the power to en-
force prohibition. it was not intended 10
give Congress the power to provide due
process OF law for the protection Of life,
| liberty, and property (Which would en-
brace almost all subjects OF legislailOn), but
to provide modes OF redress for counter
acting the operation and effect OF State laws
obnoxious to prohibition.
9. That the thirteenth amendment gives
no power to Congress TO paSs the sections
referred 10. because that amendment re-
lates only TO slavery and involuntary ScrYI-
tude. which il abOisheS, and gives Con-
grcss power 10 pass laws for its enforce
ment: that this power only extends to the
subject matter OF the amendment itself
namely, slavery and involuntary servitudc
and the necessary incidents and cOnsc-
quences OF those conditions; that ii has
nothing To do with the different races or
colors, but only refers 10 slavery. the
LEGAL equality OF ;he different races
and classes OF citizens being provided
for in the fourteenth amendment. which
prohibits the states from doing anything
10 interfere with such equality; that it is
not IN infringement OF the thirteenth
amendment to refuse TO any person equal
accommodations and privilege, OF an inn
or place ~ public entertainment, however
il NAV be yiolatiYc OF his legal rights; that
it imposes upon him 10 badge " slavery
or involuntary serYltude, which IMPLY
some sort Of subsection OF one person to
another, and i'm the capacity incident there
to, such us inability to hold property. To
make contracts. to be parties in court, a..
and that il the original civil-rlghtS act
which abolished these incapacitieS might
be supported by the thirteenth amend
ment, il does not therefore follow that the
act OF 1875 can be supported by it.
4. That this decision affects only the va
liditv OF the law in the States, and not in
| the Territories or District OF Columbia.
where the legislative power OF Congress is
unlimited and it does not undertake to de-
eide what Congress might or might not do
under the power to regulate commerce
with foreign nations and amongst the Seye-
raj States, the law not being drawn with
any such view.
5. That, therefore, it is the opinion OF
| the Court that the first and second sections
of the act OF Congress OF March Isl, 1873,
entitled " An act TO protect all citizens in
their civil and legal rights" are mconsti-
tulional and void. and judgment should be
rendered upon the indictments accord.
ingly.
At the conclusion OF the reading Of JUS
tice Bradley's opinion. which occupied
more than an hour, Justice Harlan said
that under ordinary circumstances and in
an ordinary case he should hesitate TO set
up his individual opinion III opposition to
! that OF his eight colleagues, but IN view OF
what he thought the people OF this coun-
try wished TO accomplish, what they tried
TO accomplish, and what they believed they
had accomplished by means OF this legisla-
ton. he must express his dissent from The
opinion OF the Court. He had not had
time since hearing that opinion to prepare
Il statement OF the grounds OF his dissent,
but ne should prepare and file one as soon
as possible, and in the mean time desired to
put upon record this expression OF his in
dividual judgment.
| Another Important Decision lnvolv.
ing Election Cases.
| WAsuNGTON. OciOher 1j.-AnOther in.