The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1883-10-17
The Civil Rights Law.
Full Abstract OF the Supreme Courts De-
cision Declaring Certain Sections OF the
Law Unconstitutional and void-Judge
Harlan Alone Dissents.

The decision rendered Monday by Jne
United States Supreme Court on the civil
rights cases, socalled, is highly import
ant in a political sense. The Washington
respondent of the Boston Advertiser says:
General surprise is felt over the decisi,
the Supreme Court on the civil rights
Justice Bradley wrote the opinion, the full
OF which he refused to make public. but gave
TO the press an abstract prepared by himself.
Justice Harlan alone dssented in favor OF the
constitutonality of the act. This was the
more wondered at as in 1863 he resigned from
the army In consequence OF the emancipation
proclamation, and after the war took the
STUN through the West against the adoption
of the constitutional amendment Several
Congressman, in discussing the matter this
evening took the ground that Republican
members this winter would move tor another
amendment insuring the rights which the
civil rights bill was intended to secure. Con-
gresham Davis of Illinois said that IL would
be the best issue the Republicans could present
for the Presidential campaign, as he takes IL
for granted that the Democrats will oppose 1t.
Senator Harrison declared that no law could
now be passed by Congress on this subject,
aud the only way to obtain the end arrived at
in Mr.. Summers pet measure would be either by
an amendment as proposed by Mr.. Davis, or
by leaving the subject entirely TO the several
States He thinks the reopening OF this queS-
tion will make it political issue. The Repub-
licans will be confronted with this problem
when Congress meets. Some of their number
will insist upon advanced action.
THE DECISION.
The decision rendered was that in the five
cases commonly known as the civil rights
cases. which were submitted to the court on
printed arguments about year ago. The
titles of these cases. and the States from which
they come are as follows:
No. THE United States against Murray Stan
ley from the United States circuit court, for the
No. 2~'rhe United States against Michael Ryan,
from the United States circuit court for the dis
No. 3~Tne United States against Samuel
Nichols, from the United States circuit court for
the western district of Missouri
No. 23-The United States against SAMUEL ID.
Singleton from the United States circuit court
from the southern district of New York; and
No. 2S-Richard A. Robinson and wife against
the Memphis q Charleston Railroad Company, 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 1870,
and were respectively prosecutions under that
act for not admitting certain colored persons
TO equal accommodations in inns or hotels, in
railroad cars, and in theatres. The defense
set up in every case was the alleged uncon-
stitutiona,ty of the law. The first and second
sections of the act which were the parts
directly in controversy are as follows:
Section THAT all persons within the jurisdc-
tion of the United States shall be entitled TO The
full and equal eulOymenLS OF the accOmmOQaIlOn1,
advantages facilities. privileges of and pablo
conveyances ON land and water, theatres and other
Conditions and limitations estabiisned bv law and
applicable alik 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, t. be recovered in civil ae
tion and also penalty of from $500 TO 81 900
fine and Imprisonment from 80 days to year to be
euforce in a crimi al prosecution. Exclusive jur-
sdction is given 10 the district and circuit courts
of Ia ITuffa ad in npdar
The rights and privileges claimed by, and
denied to, the colored persons in these cases
were full aud equal accommodations in ladies'
cars on railway trains and in the dress circle in
theatres.
The court, in a long and carefully prepared
opinion by Judge Bradley, holds: First, that
Congress had no constitutional authority to
pass the sections in question, under either the
thirteenth or fourteenth amendment of the
Constitution; second, that the fourteenth
amen iment is prohibitory upon the States only,
and that the legislation authorized to be adopt
ed by Congress for enforcing that amendment
is not direct legislation in matters respecting
which the States are prohibited from making
or enforcing certain laws or doing certain acts,
but is corrective legislation, necessary or prop
er for counteracting and redressing the effect
of such laws or acts, that in forbidding the
States, for example, TO deprive any person OF
life, liberty or property without due pro-
cess of law, and giving Congress power
TO enforce the prohibition. 1t was not in
tended to give Congress power to provide,
by due process oflaw, for the protection OF life,
liberty and property, which would embrace al
most all subjects of legislation, but to provide
modes of redress for counteractiIg the opera
tion and effect of State laws obnoxious to the
prohibition; third, that the thirteenth amend
ment gave no power to Congress to pass the
sections referred to, because that amendment
relates to slavery and involuntary servitude,
which it abolshes, and gives Congress power
to pass laws for its enforcement; that this pow
or only extends to the subject matter Of the
amendment itself, namely, slavery and invol-
untary servitude, and the necessary incidents
and consequences of these conditions; that it
has nothing TO do with different races or colors
but only refers to slavery, the legal equality Of
different races and classes of citizens, being
provided for in the fourteenth amendment,
| which prohibits the States from doing anything
| to interfere with such equality; that it is no
| Infringement of the fourteenth amendment to
| refuse to any person the equal accommodations
| and privileges oil an inn or place OF public en-
| tertainment, however it may be v1olative OF
| his legal rights; that it imposes on him no
| badge of slavery or involuntary servitude
| which imply some sort of subsection OF one
| person to another, and the 1noapacity incident
| thereto, such as inability to hold property, to
make contracts, to be parties In court, ETC., and
that if the original civil rights act which abol-
ished these incapacties might be supported by
the fourteenth amendment, it does not there
fore follow that the act of 1875
that this decision affects only the
| validity of the law in the States, and not in
| the Territories or in the District of Columbia,
| where the legislative power Of Congress is un-
| limited, and it does not undertake to decide
| what Congress might or might not dc under
| the power to regulate commerce with foreign
| nations and amongst the several States, the
| law not being drawn with any such view;
| fifth, that therefore it is the opipion OF the
| court that the first and second sections of the
| act of Congress Of March /, 1875, entitled "An
| act to protect all citizens in their civil and
| legal rights" are unconstitutional and void,
| and judgment should be rendered upon the
| indictments accordingly.
At the conclusion of the reading of Justice
Bradley's opinion, which occupied more than
| an hour, Justice Harlan said that, under ordi-
nary circumstances, and in an ordinary case,
| he should hesitate to set up his individual
| opinion in opposition to that of his eight col
leagues, but in view of what he thought the
people of the country wished to accomplish,
| what hey-tried to accomplish, and what they
| believed they had accomplished by means OF
| this legislation, he must express his dissent
| from the opinion of the court. He had not
| had time since hearing that opinion to prepare
| q statement of tue grounds OF his dissent, bat
| he should prepare one as soon possible, and
| in the meantime desired to put upon record
| this expression of his individual Judgment.
A Great Business.
The mills, which were founded by the late
Governor Washburn of Minnesota, are the
| lar yaet In tho world and raDahta of orodr.