National Republican., 1883-01-23
THE SUPREME COURT.
A Long and Carefully Prepared Opinion in the
"Civil Rights" Cases.
The Facts Out Of Which the Litigation
Rose Briefly Stated.
The Conspiracy Clause Found Wanting in COnstitu-
tonal Authority,
Other Cases Decided-Other Business
Transacted.

n decision was rendered by the supreme
court of the United States Monday in the
important constitutional case of the United
States against r. G., Harris and others, brought
here upon a certificate of division of opinion
from the United States circuit court for the
western district of Tennessee.
This is one of the four or five so.called
"civil rights cases" which were submitted to
this court upon printed briefs in the early
part of the October term of 1850. There were
at that time number of vacancies ON tho
bench of the court, and in view of the impor-
tance Of the questions involved, il was thought
best to set aside the submission of these cases,
and order them to be argued orally before %
full bench. When the present case came up
for hearing in November last no counsel ap-
peared for the defendants, and instead of be-
ing orally argued il was again submitted in
behalf of the United States on the printed
brief of the solicitor general. The interests
of the defendants and of the state of Tennes-
see were left without argument to the care of
the court.
The facts out of which thislitigation arises
so far as they are disclosed by the record and
the pleadings, are briefly as follows: Some time
in the year 1877 four citizens of Tennessee
supposed to be colored men, although not so
described in the rccord-were arrested by one
Tucker, n deputy sheriff, upon warrants issued
by Justice of the peace, and held to answer
certain criminal charges, the nature of which
is not set forth While in the custody of the
deputy sheriff these four prisoners were at
tackled by an armed body of men, of whom
the defendant Harris was one, and so severely
beaten, wounded, and maltreated that Z. M.
Wells, one of their number, died from the eff
fects of his injuries. An indictment was found
by the grand jury against Harris, and his as
sociates of the attacking party, under section
5519 of the Revised Statutes, charging them
with IN lam ua bn t,rig
above mentioned of their right to the
due and equal protection of the laws
of Tennessee, and of their right to
be protected from violence while under ar
rest. The defendants demurred to the in
dictment on the grounds: First, that the
oflenses created by section 55l9 of the Revised
Statutes are not constitutionally within the
Jurisdiction of the courts of the United
States but are cogniZablo by state tribunals
only and, second, that the said section 5510,
in so far as it creates oilenses and imposes
penalties is in violation of the federal con-
stitution, and an infringement of the rights
of the several states and of the people thereof.
Upon trial of the case tho judges of the circuit
court found themselves unable TO agree as to
the constitutionality of the section of the Re-
Vised Statutes above referred to, and certified
the question to this court fora decision, The
section is as follows:
IL two or more persons in any state or territory
conspire, or go in disguise on the highway, or on
the premises of another, for the purpose of de-
priving, either directly or indirectly any person
laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under
the laws or tor the purpose of preventing or him
dering the constituted authorities Of any state
territory from giving or securing to all persons
within such state or territory the equal protection
of the laws, each of such persons shall be pun
ished by fine of not less than $500 nor more than
$1,000, or by imprisonment, with or without hard
labor not less than six months, nor moro than six
years. or by both such fine and imprisonment
1..s
in n long and carefully prepared opinion by
Mr. Justice Woods
After briefly stating the case, and saying
that every valid act of congress must find in
the constitution some warrant for its passage,
Justice Woods proceeds to an examination of
the only four paragraphs in the federal con-
stitutiOn which can in the rcmOtCst degree
have reference to the question in controversy,
namely, section of article Of the original
constitution and tho thirteenth, fourteenth,
and fifteenth amendments. Taking these up
in inverse order, he briefly dsposes of the
fifteenth amendment by saying it is clear that
that amendment can have no application to
the case, since it relates merely to the
right of citizens of the United States to
vote. 1t is equally clear that the section
in controversy cannot be based on
the fourteenth amendment, since that
has reference to state action exclusively, and
not to any action of private individuals. The
this subject in doubt. When the state has
been guilty of no violation of its provisions
when ii has not made or enforced any law
abridging the privileges or immunites of cti-
Zens of the United States; when no one of its
departments has deprived any person of life,
liberty or property with due process of law,
or denied toe any person within its .jurisdic-
tion tho equal protection of the laws; when,
on the contrary the laws Of tho state as en-.
acted by its legislative construed by its judi
cial, and administered by its executive depart
ments, recognize and protect the rights of all
persons, the amendment imposes no duty
and confers no power upon congress.
Section 65l9 is not limited to take effect
only in case the state shall abridge the privi-
leges or immunities of citizens of the United
States or deprive any person of life, liberty,
or properly without due process of law, or
deny to any person the equal protection of
the laws. 1t applies, no matter how we'll the
state may have performed its duty. Under
IL private persons are liable to punishment for
cOnspiring to deprive any one of the equal
protection of the laws enacted by the state.
In the indictment In this case for instance
which would be "a good indictment under the
law, if the law itself were valid, there is no
intimation that the state of Tennessee has
passed any law or done any act forbidden by
the fourteenth amendment. On the econtrary,
the gravamen Of the charge against the ac-
cused is that they cOnspired to deprive GER
tain citizens of the United States and of the
state Of Tennessee Of the equal protection
afforded them by the laws of Tennessee
Since, therefore, the section of the Revised
Statutes under consideration is directed OK
clusvely against the action of private per-
sons without reference to the laws of the
state or their administration by the officers
of the state, tho court Is clear in the opinion
that IL is not warranted by any clause in the
fourteenth amendment TO the constitution.
The court is next TO consider whether tho
thirteenth amendment furnishes authority for
the enactment of the law under review.
This amendment delares that neither slavery
nor involuntary scrvitude, except as u pun
ishment of crime whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted, shall exist within the
United States or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to
enforce this article by appropriate legisla-
ton" Does this amendment warrant the en-
actment of section 55l0 of the Revised Stat
utes? In the opinion of this court it does
not, and this conclusion is based ON the fact
that the provisions of that section are broader
than the thirteenth amendment would justify.
Under that section it would be an ofense for
two or more white persons to cOnspire for the
purpose of deprivng another white person of
the equal protection Of tho laws. Ii would
be an otlense for two or moro colored persons
-enfranchised slayes-to conspire with tho
same purpose against n white citizen or against
another cOlored citizen who had never been n
slave. Even II tho amendment is held to be
directed against the action of private indi-
Niduals, rs well as against the action of the