Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1883-10-19
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.
The Supreme Courts Decision.

The decision of the United States Supreme
Court, reallirming the uncoustitutionality of
the civil-rights act, was gwen on five cases,
which were all based on the first and second
sections of the civil-rights act of 1915, and
were respectively prosecutions under that act
for not admitting certain Colored persons to
equal accommodations in inns or hotels, in
railroad cars aud in theatres. The defence
set up in every case was the alleged uncon-
stitutionality of the law. The first and
second sections of the act, which were the
parts directly in controversy, are as fol-
lows:
Section /. That all persons within the
jurisdiction OF the United States shall be en-
titled to the full and equal enjoyments of
the accommodations, advantages, facilities,
privileges of linus aud public conveyances on
land au water, theatres aGd other places of
public amusement, subject only to the condi-
tiOns and limitations established by law and
applicable alike to citiz.ns of every race aud
color, regardless OF auy previous condition
of servitude
The second section provides that any per-
son who violates the first section shall be la
BILE to forfeit $500 for each offence, TO be re-
covered in a civil action, and also to pen
atty of from $500 to $1,000 fine and imprs-
onmcnt from 80 days TO 4 year, to be en-.
forced in criminal prosecution. Exclusive
jurisdiction is given to the district and
| circuit courts of the United States in cases
arising under the law.
The rights and privileges claimed by, and
denied to, the cOlOred persons in th csc cases
were full and equal accommodations in
ladies cars on railway trains aud in the
dress circle in theatres.
The court, in u long and carefully prepared
opinion by Justice Bradley, holds First,
That Congress had no constitutional author
ty to Iass the sections in question, under
either the thirteenth Or fourteenth amend
ment of the constitution second, that the
fourteenth amendment is prohi5itory upon
the States only, and that the legislation
authorized to be adopted by congress for en-
forcing that amendment is not direct legisa-
ton in matters respecting which the States
are prohibited from making or enforcing
certain laws or doing certain acts, but is cor
receive legislation, necessary or proper for
counteracting and redressing the effect of
such laws or acts that in forblddiug the
States, for example, 10 deprive any person
of life, liberty or property without due
process of law and giving Congress the
power to enforce the prohibition, it was not
intended to give Congress power to provide,
by due process of law, for the protection OF
life, liberty and property, which would
embrace almost all subjects of legislation, but
to provide modes OF redress for counteracting
the operation and effect of State laws obnox'
ious 10 the prohibition third, that the 18th
amendment gave no power to Congress 10
pass the sections referred TO, because that
amendment relates to slavery and involuntary
scrvitude, which II abolshes, and gives Con- |
gress power to pass laws for its enforcement
that this power only extends TO the subject |
matter of the amendment itself, namely, |
slavery and involuntary servitude, and |
the necessary incidents aud consequences |
of these conditions that 1t has nothing |
to do with different races or colors, but |
only refers to slavery, the legal equality of |
different races and classes of citzeus being
provided for in the fourteenth amendment,
which prohibits the States from doing any
thing to interfere with such equality; that it
is no infringement of the fourteenth amend
ment to refuse to any person the equal ac-
and privileges OF an inn or
place of public entertainment, however il
may be violalive of his legal rights that it
imposes ON him no badge Of slavery or invol-
untary servitude, which imply some sort of
subsection of one person TO another, and the
inc opacity incident thereto, such bs Inability
to hold property,to make contracts, TO be par
ties h court, etc; and that II the original civil
rights act which abolished these incipaclties
might be supported ny the fourteenth amend
ment, it does not therefore follow that the
act of 1875 can be supported by it; fourth
that this decision affects only the validity of
the law in the States, and not IN the Terri
tories or in the District of Columbia, where
the legislative power of Congress is unlim-
tied, aud it does not undertake to decide what
Congress might or might not do under the
power to regulate commerce with foreign
nations and amongst the several states, the
aw not being drawn with any such view;
18th, that therefore 1t is the opinion of the
court that the first and second sections of tho
vet of Congress of March 1, 1875, entitled,
AN act to protect all citizens in their civil
md legal rights" are unconstitutional and
,oid, and Judgment should be rendered upon
he indictments accordingly,
AT the conclusion of the reading OF Justice
3radley's opinion, which occupied more than