The Aberdeen examiner. [volume] (Aberdeen, Miss.) 1866-current, 1883-02-01

nounced in a long and carefully pre-
pared opinion by Mr. Justice Woods.
After briefly stating the case, and
saying that every valid act of con
gress must find in the Constitution
some warrant for its passage, Justice
Woods proceeds to an examination
of the only four paragraphs in the
federal constitutions which can in
the remotest degree have reference
to the question in controversy, name.
ly, section 2 of article A of the origi,
nal constitution and the thirteenth,
fourteenth, and fifteenth amend
ments. Taking these up in inverse
order, he briefly disposes of the fif-
teenth 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. It is
,qually clear that the section in con-
troversy cannot be based on the
fourteenth amendment, since that
has reference to state action exclu
sively, and not to any action of pri-
vate individuals. The language of
the amendment does not leave this
subject in doubt When the State
has been guilty Of no violation of its
provisions wher it has not made or
enforced any law abridging the priv>
ileges or immunities of citizens OF
the United States; when no one of
its departments has deprived any
person of life, liberty or property
without due process of law, or de
MED to any person within its juris>
diction the equal protection Of the
laws when, on the contrary,the laws
of the State as enacted by its legis>
lative, construed by its judicial, 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 5519 is not limited to take
effect only In case the State shall
abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States or
deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law,
or deny to any person the equal pro-
lection of the laws. 1t applies, no
matter how we'll the State may have
performed its duty. Under it pri-
vate persons are liable to punishment
for conspiring to deprive any one of
the equal protection of the laws en-
acted by the State.
In the indictment in this case, for
instance, which would be good in.
dictment under the law, if the law
itself were valid. there is no intima-
ton that the State of Tennessee has
passed any law or done any act for,
hidden by the fourteenth amendment.
On the contrary, the gravamen of the
charge against the accused is that
they conspired to deprive certain
citizens of the United State 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 consdera-
ton is directed exclusively against
the action of private persons, without
reference to the laws of the State or
their administration by the officers
of the State, the court is clear in the
opinion that it is not warranted by
any clause in the fourteenth amend
ment to the constitution.
The court is next to consider
whether the thirteenth amendment
furnishes authority for the enact>
ment of the law under review. This
amendment declares that neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude,
except as punishment of crime
whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted, shall exist within the
United States or any place subject
to their jurisdiction. Congress snail
have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation" Does this
amendment warrant the enactment
of section 5519 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 thir-
teenth amendment would justify.
Under that section it would be an
offense for two or more white per-
sons to conspire for the purpose of
depriving another white person of
the equal protection of the laws. 1t
would be an offense for two or more
colored persons-enfranchised slaves
to conspire with the same purpose
against white citizen or against
another colored citizen who had
never been a slave. Even if the
amendmsnt is held TO be directed
against the action of private individ-
uals, as we'll as against the action of
the State and of the United States,
the law under consideration covers
cases both within and without the
provisions of the amendment.
1t covers any conspiracy between
two free white men against another
free white man to deprive the latter
of any right accorded him by the
laws of the State or of the United
States.
A law under which two or more
free white private citizens could be
punished for conspiracy or going in
disguise for the purpose of depriving
another free white citizen of a right
accorded by the law of the State to
all classes of persons, as,for instance,
the right to make contract, bring
a suit, or give evidence, cannot be
authorized by an amendment which
simply prohibits slavery and invol.
untary servitude.
There is another view which
strengthens this conclusion. If con-
gress has constitutional authority
under the thirteenth amendment to