Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1883-02-02
THE DECISION IN THE CIVIL
RNEHTS CASE

For several years after the close Of the
war there was a strong tendency in
Congress to frame legislation for parti-
san purposes without q very strict re-
gard to the Constitution. The courts
have been gradually undOing this work,
and the action Of the court in the last
H'civil rights case" is another instance
where these laws have been invali-
dated.
The decision Of the court, in the case
from Tennessee, is not yet very
generally understood. 1t lpractl-
cally grasses from the statute book this
section of the revised statutes:
"If two or more persons in any State
or Territory cOnSpire, or go in dis
guise on the highway oron the premises
Of another, for the purpose Of depriving,
either directly or Indirectly, any person
or class of persons of the equal prOtec-
ton of the laws, or of equal privileges
and immunities under the laws, or for
the purpose of preventing OF hindering
tEe constituted authorities of any State
or Territory from giving or securing to
all persons within such State or Terri
tory the equal protection Of the laws,
each Of such persons shall be punished
by a fine of not less than $500 nor more
than s., 900, or by Imprisonment, with
or without hard labor, not less than six
months or more than six years, or by
both such fine and Imprisonment"
The provision was originally enacted
rs a part Of what was known as the
Ku-Klux law, and was intended to en-
able the Federal authorities to prose-
cute the bands of lawless white persons
i'm the Southern States who were en-
gagged in the commission of crimes
against the blacks, and to bring them
TO trial before the Federal tribunals in
stead Of in the State courts.
The doctrine which underlies the
present decision is that such constraint
as the Federal power is authorized to
exercise for the maintenance Of the civil
rights of citizens must be exerted upon
the States rather than upon individuals.
Unless a State, for example, infringes
some of the prohibitions against State
action contained in the constitution,
there is no occasion for the interference
of the general government to preserve
the personal rights intended to be guar
anteed by those prohibitions.
This is sound State rights doctrine,
and il Is satisfactory tolnd it laid down
by a Republican court.
The practical effect Of the judieisl in
t~erpretation Of the fourteenth amend
ment is to leave to the States the doing
of Justice and the enforcement of laws
for the protection Of rights within their
borders. They eSnnotthemselveS make
or enforce laws that abridge the privi-
Ieges or immunities of citizens;
,hey cannot by any exercise of
their own authority or power de-
priye persons of life, liberty, or prop
erty. and they cannot by constitu-
5;opal provision, by legislative act, OF
NV iudicial proceeding deny the protee-
,;on Of the laws to any person, and yeS
.hev NAV permit, by failure or inca
Hao;,v 10 act, the practical results which
,psy are prohibited from working. The
. that so long as we have State
"rarnments, within their field OF ac-
a. we cannot by national authority
s"vsnt the consequences of misgovern-
insnt. The people of the States are de-
-ordent on their W civilized soeAs
md habits for the benefits OF ci'iLiAed
sSmjnistration Of laws