The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-10-16
An Elaborate Opinion by Justice Bradley,
Endorsed by Seven of His Colleagues,
Justice Harlan Alone Dissenting.
A Clear and Concise Statement Of the
Points of the Decision.
Regret Occasioned at the Capital by the Com
ing Retirement of General Sherman
General News and Gossip.
CIVIL RIGHTS.


The First and Second Sections of the Act
Declared Unconstitutional,
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15.-The most important
decision rendered by the Supreme Court of
the United States, to-day, was that in five
cases, commonly known as civil rights cases,
which were submitted to the court on
printed arguments about a year ago. The
titles of these cases and the States from which
they came are as follows:
No. l, United States against Murray STAN
ley, from the United States Circuit Court for
the district of Kansas; No. g United States
against Michael Ryan, from the United
States Circuit Court for the district of Cali
fornia; No g. United States against Samuel
Nicholas, from the United States Circuit
| Court for the western district of Missouri
No. &C. United States against Samuel D.
Singleton, from the United States Circuit
| Court for the southern district of New York.
and No. %, Richard Robinson and wife
against the Memphis & Charleston Railroad
| Company, from the United States Circuit
! Court for the district of Tennessee.
These cases were all based on the first and
second sections of the civil rights act of 1875,
and were respectively prosecutions under
that act for not admitting certain colored
persons to equal accommodations and privi-
leges in inns or hotels in railroad cars and
in theaters. The defense set up in every
case was the alleged unconstitutionality of
the law. The first and second sections of
the act, which were the parts directly in con-
| troversy are as follows:
Section 1. That all persons within the iuris-
| dicton of the United States shall be entitled to
| full and equal enjoyment of the accommoda-
| tons, advantages, facilities and privileges Of
| inns, public conveyances on land and water
| theaters, and other places of public amusement,
| subject only to the conditions and limitations
established by law and applicable alike to citi-
zens of every race and color, regardless of any
| previous condition of servltude.
| The second section provides that any per-
son who violates the first section shall be
liable to forfeit of $500 for each offense, 10
be recovered in civil action, and also to
penalty of from $500 to 81, 600 fine, or impris-
onment of thirty days to one year. to be en-
forced as IN a criminal prosecution. Exclu-
siye jurisdiction is given to District and Cir
cult Courts Of the United States in cases
arising under the law.
The rights and privileges claimed by and
denied to colored persons in these cases were
| full and equal accommodations in hotels IN
ladies on railway trains and in dress
| circles in theaters.
POINTS OF THE DECISION.
The court, in a long and carefully-prepared
opinion by Justice Bradley, holds:
First-That Congress had no constitutions
al authority to pass the sections in question
under either the thirteenth or fourteenth
amendment to the constitution.
| SecOnd-That the fourteenth amendment
| is prohibitory upon States only, aud that
| legislation authorized to be adopted by Con-
gress for enforcing that amendment is di.
| rect legislation on matters respecting which
| the States nr0hi ihite1 from r1lalyiDp or
enforcing certain laws ordainng certain
| acts. but is corrective legislation necessary
| or proper for counteracting and redressng
| the effect of such law or acts; that in forbid
ding States, for example, to deprive any per-
son of life, liberty or property without due
process of law, and giving Congress power
| to enforce this prohibition, it was not in
| tended to give Congress power to provide
due process of law for protection OF life,
liberty and property which would embrace
| almost all ubjects of legislation, but to pro-
| vide modes of redress for cOunteracting the
| operation and effect of State laws obnoxious
| to the prohibition.
Third-That the thirteenth amendment
| gives no power to CONGRESS to pass the sec
| tions referred to, because that amendment
relates only to slavery and involuntary
servitude, which is abolished and gives Con-
| gress powers to pass laws for its enforcement;
| that this power only extends to the subject
| matter of the amendment ITSELF namely,
slavery and involuntary serYltude, and the
| necessary incidents and consequence of these
| conditions; that it has nothing TO do with the
different races or colors, but only refers to
| slavery, the legal equality OF the different
| races and classes OF citizens being provided
| for in the fourteenth amendment which
| prohibits States from doing anything to
| interfere with such equality; that it is not an
infringement of the thirteenth amendment
| to refuse 10 any person equal accommoda-
| tion and privileges in an inn or place OF
public entertainment However, it may
| be violative of his legal rights
that it imposes upon him no
| badge of slavery or involuntary servitude
which imply some sort of subsection OF one
person to another, and incapacity incident
thereto-such as inability to hold property,
to make contracts. to be parties in court,
etc.-and that if the original civil-rights act,
which abolished these incapacities, might be
supported by the thirteenth amendment it
does not therefore, follow that the act of
1877 can be supported by it,
Fourth-That this decision affects only the
validity of the law in the States, and not in
the Territories or the District of Columbia,
where the legislative power of Congress is
unlimited; and it does not undertake to de-
eide what Congress might or 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.
Third-That, therefore, it is the opinion of
the court that the first and second sections of
the act of Congress of March l, 1877, entitled
IAN act to protect all citizens in their civil
and legal rights" are unconstitutional and
void, and judgment should be rendered upon
the indictments accordingly.
JUSTICE HARLAN DIssENrs.
AT the conclusion of the reading of Justice
Bradley's opinion, which occupied more