National Republican., 1883-11-05
THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE.
Tie True Import Of the Decision aS II Appears
to an Old Jurist
Gan Hail 20 Court That Dnrcs Inhcxlbly
to Stand by the Constitution."
To The Editor

March /, 1875, entitled, IAN act to protect all
citizens in their civil and legal rights" have
recently been declared unconstitutional by
the supreme court of the United States, and
therefore void, there being no authority in
the constitution or its amendments for its
passage. This decision of the court has
elected many unjust and i'll natured criti-
cisms from the press correspondents and
eminent popular speakers of both races; and
that, too, before the decision was revised and
promulgated in print, and before it was
known what the grounds of the same
were. A few days ago that decision was pub
lished, since which / ha We read it with care,
and desire now Mr.. Edi tor, through the me-
dium of your sheet, which has admitted SO
many unfriendly articles against the court,
to give true import and sense of the decision
to the end that the public mind, If possible,
may be disabused and the structures aforesaid
shown to be unjustifable.
The decision itself was prepared by Mr..
Justice Bradley, and is entirely free from all
metaphysical refnements and distractions,
and remarkable for the clearness of its state
ments and forco of its logic, so that the COM
mon mind of ordinary intelligence may and
can understand the reasons which the court
has assigned for holding and deciding the act
in question to be unconstitutional.
1t seems to me before any portion of the
public should indulge in animadversions
against the judicial action of the court, the
effect of which is to destroy the confidence of
the people in that high tribunal, which here
toiore has been the pride of the whole coun-
try-the great conservator of the constitution
itself and all the fundamental rights secured
therein TO the citizen-they should make
themselves acquainted with the real grounds
OF the decision, and if they are not sound in
fhai iu1 In ahn ia n
blindly denouncing the court, no one could
reasonably object to such course. When
Judge Harlan shall file his dissenting opinion,
his acknowledged ability rs aiurist, his great
integrity and purity of character rs man,
will shield him from any unjust aspersions
from the other side, for no one will question
the sincerity of his convictions; and that same
charity which thinRetl no evil should be
extended to the other members of the court.
But, Mr.. Editor, l set out to lay open to the
public if could short concise statement of
the courts reasons for declaring the first sec
tlon of the civil rights act unconstitutional,
which it is claimed was authorized by the
fourteenth amendment. If | can succeed in
doing this it will be all the vindication the
court will need from the daily structures so
freely INDUCED in against it. Many readers
have not ready access to the fourteenth
amendment or the civil rights act / there
fore insert copies of the first section of each,
that they may understand the force and just
ness of the reasoning Of the court.
ARTICLEl4.
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalaed in
the United States aud subject to the jurisdiction
thereof are citizens OF the United states and of the
state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
eHforGe any law which shall abridge the .prlvi,
r Rtcs; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property with )ut due proc s. of
Inv; nor deny 70 any person within its Juris'
diction the equal protection of the laws
CIVIL. RIGHTS ACT,
SECTION !. That all persons within the iuris-
-ltc,ion OF the United States shall be entitled
10 he l ava fas S and hs Of
iuuS, public cInvGyanGes on land or water, thea
teTs. and other places of public amusement, sub
lsaed by law, Wnd applicable alike 10 citizens of
every race and color, regardless OF any previous
condition ofservtude.
1t is plain from n casual glance Of the first
section of the fourteenth amendment that its
object was to guard against state interference
in the matter of the equal rights and i'm
munitles of all citizens, both white and col
orcd 1t is strictly prohbitory upon the
state in that regard, and like many other re-
straining clauses of the constitution. is self
executing and really needs no act of congress
to enforce its provisions. Ii state should,
contrary to the inhibitions of this amend
mcnt, undertake, by unfriendly legislation or
otherwise to defeat or circumvent the pur-
pose of this amendment of the constitution,
the mischief thereof would find corrective
in the power and jurisdiction of the courts of
the country upon question that could easily
be raised and brought before them. Take an
example: After the adoption of the
fourteenth amendment the state of Kentucky,
i'll revising her statutes, enacted, among other
things, that no person shall be qualified as
grand juryman unless lie be a white Citizen."
After this a black man was indicted, tried,
convicted, and sentenced to suffer death.
q Iu1pment
cause colored men were excluded from the
grand jury, upon the presumption that the
grand jury had been selected in accordance
with the requirements of the statutes. This
proceeding was brought before the supreme
court of the United States and determined
last winter, sustaining the motion and dis.
charging the accused. OF course the Ken
tucky act was held to be unconstitutional,
and the mischief was corrected by the power
of the court in the absence ofany legislation on
the part Of congress. This was the case Of the
commonwealth of Kentucky against a colored
man by the name of Butts, not yet reported,
Justice Harlan writing the opinion 1t is
understood that the courts of Kentucky have
decided the same way in another case and
the word white has since been stricken from
the law. This decision establishes the right
of colorcd people to sit upon juries, which,
however had been done before 1t shows
that state laws in conflict with said amend
ment may be counteracted and declared
nugatory by the courts without any special
legislation by congress, for the reason that
il is self executing, like many other clauses
Of the constitution restraining the states from
doing certain things-namely, those which
prohibit tho states from granting
letters of marquo and reprisals, emit
bills of credit, pass OK post facto laws or
laws mpairing the obligations of contracts
and others. What laws has congress ever
passed to guard against the exercise Of such O
power by the states? None. Why? Because
they are self executing like the amendment
under consideration. Still it may be admitted
that it is competent for congress to enact
laws to secure and make e6ectual the re-
straining power of the fourteenth amend
menT, but then they must be appropriate
laws; that is, laws german to the subject and
objects of the amendment, namely, tha
which will correct and counteract any ad
verse legislation on the part of the state
Now, the first and second sections of the civi
rights act is not such law, il does not toucl
tho subject of the amendment it makes n,
reference whatever to acts done by th
authority Of the states, it is wha
the court terms primary and direct legsla
tion on subjects quite distinct and outside o
the provisions both of the thirteenth ant
fourteenth amendments, and have no basis o
authority for their passage in either, or an.
other known provisions of the constitution
hence the court had no other alternative thai
TO decide these sections void. There ar
other sections in the civil rights act whicl
.l,,II Il rgr ID Iana lA