The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1883-10-23
The Civil Rights Act Decided I'm
COmNt1tut1Omal.

On the l4th instant the Supreme Court
of the United States declared the uncon-
stitutionality OF the Civil Rights Act in
IA decision rendered in five cases, submitted
from I. :. Circuit Courts in as many diff
terent States, north, south and west, over
year ago. Justice Harlan alone dis
scented from the opinion, which was de-
livered 10y Justice Bradley and in which
his eight colleagues concurred. The cases
were prosecutions by certain colored per-
sons for being denied equal accommoda-
tions and privileges in hotels, railroad
cars and theatres. We extract from the
telegraphic summary of the opinion
The first and second sections of the act, which
were the parts directly in the controversy, are As
| follows:
SECTION /. That all persons within the juris-
| diclon of the United States shall be entitled 10
lull and equal enjoyment of the accommoda
lions, advantages facilities and privileges OF inns
! and public conveyances on land and water, the
aires and other places of public amusement, sub
! lecl only To conditions and limitations estab-
lished by law and applicable alike to citizens OF
every race and color, regardless OF any previous
| condition of servilude.
The second section provides that any person
who violates the first section shall be liable to
l"rielt OF $500 for each offence, 10 be recovered
| in civil action and also To the penalty of from
| $500 TO $1,000 fine, or imprisonment from 80
days 10 year, 10 be enforced in criminal prose
| cuionS. Exclusive jurisdiction Is given To the
District and Circuit Courts of the United States
in cases arising ander the law.
The nights and privileges claimed by and
denied 10 coorrd persons in these cases were full
| latD N hnt in i,Hi
ears on railroad trains and in the dress circle in
| theatres. The court in long and carefully pre-
pared opinion " Justice Bradley holds
| First. Tint <Angress had no constitutional
| authority to pass the sections in question under
either the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amend
mcnts OF the Constitution.
| Second. That the Fourteenth Amendment is
prohlbtory upon the taes only, and that the
legislation authorized to be adopted by Congress
| Tor enforcing that amendment is not direct legs-
| ialion on matters respecting which the States
| are prohibited from making or enforcing certain
laws or doing certain ACES, but is corrective leg
| i>latlon necessary or proper for conntcIacting
ana rcdres>ng The effect ot such laws or acts for.
bids Slac, Tor example, to deprive any person of
! lic liberty T property without due process of
! law, and giving Congress powers to eltorce its
! prohibi'l"n- Ii was not intended to give Con-
! grc~s power 10 provide due process Of law for the
| protection Of ilir liberty and property, which
| would embrace almost all subjects OF legislation,
| bat To provide modes OF reire>s for commencing
| the operation and effect OF State laws obnoxioms
! 10 prohibition
Third. That the Thirteenth amendment gives
| no power tC Congress to pass the sections re-
| lcIrrd to, because that amendment relates only
! ~ slavery and involuntary servlludc, which il
! nhU>hrs ard gives Congress power to pass laws
! .0r Its emf ICcment that this power only cx-
! lCnGs To tlT slttjrc1 matter OF The amendment
/ lisci namely, slavery and involuntary scrvitnde
! an| The necessary Incidents and consequences Of
! lh"s" condtOns that ii has nothing to do with
| HE ,hlrreit race c0lors but only refers To
| slavery, The legal equality of different races and
| a>srS OF dzens being provided for in the
| Fourteenth amendment, which prohibits The
| States from doing anything to interfere with
| such equality; that 1t Is no Infringement of the
! lhlicCuti Amendment 10 refuse To any person
! equal acc, mm0 atons and privileges OF an inn
| or places OF publlc enter alnmrnt, however it
! may be a violation of his legal rights that it
| imposes Upon him no badge OF slavery or invol-
! un'ary &c Ftrdc which imply some sort of sub
! jcCton Of one person to another and incapaciiy
incident hereto, such as inability to hold prop
! city, 10 make contracts, to be parties in court,
etc, and that II the Olginal civil rights act which
aboshca these therapeutics might be supported
. by the Thirteenth amendment it does not there
fore follow thai the ACT Of 1915 can be supported
/ hy IT,
Fourth. Thai this decision affects onlyrhe va
/ lidily OF The law in the States and not in the
/ Territories Di me DlStIlCl OF (OluinOla. where
! the legislative power of Congress is unlimited,
! and il does not undertake To decide what Con-
! gics- might OF might not do under its 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 opinion Of the
! court that the first and second sections OF the
act OF Congress of March l, 1915, entitled " an
ACT to protect all citizens in their civil and legal
! rights are unconstitutional and void, and that
jud ,mcnt should be rendered upon the indict-
mems accordingly.
The event Of this importont decision
suggests at once the idea of the fallacy
or incompletcness of acts of legislation
in many instances, and of the necessity Of
the restraint placed upon the action of
the peoples representatives by the tribu-
nails of Interpretation and jurisdiction.
For about eight years several millions Of
pcoplc-to-wit: the colored-have been
under the impression that if they were
denied certain privileges, if they chose to
claim them, they were wrongcd in their Sc
gal right" that is, that they could secure
redress under the law, Justly administered
anu now LHtN ASCERTAIN from HcAu quar-
tiers at Washington that they have been
laboring under grievous mistake all this
Nhlc--that it rests with the State in
which any one of them lives to make
law to sustain him in his claim of privi
lcgcS, and no such law exists in these
States, north, west or south, in which ap-
pcalS in above cases were taken, and that
his claim remains but mere question of
police regulation or individual action.
A Washington dispatch OF the 10th
says:
The decision of the Supreme Court declaring
The civil rights ACT at 1870 unconstitutional
INVASION OF the rights of the States, has been the
subject of much comment here to-tlav Several
nl TN most prominent Cplorcd men OF the DIS
trlct have been interviewed and have given their
opinions AS to the moral effect of the decision.
Naturally the majority OF them express regret
that The Supreme Court has rendered such "A de-
ci>Un, and are inclined to regard it as an OBJ
-tacc to the prosperity Of the colored race.
Bruce ex-senator from Mississippi, and at pres
ent Register OF the Treasury declares ii The most
unfortunate decision, and one that will carry
the country backwards fifteen years. He also
says that il does not reflect the sentiment OF the
DeuDp of the limited STATES md is revival inf