The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-01-26
The Supreme Court-The Amend
yunntg


manifested to belittlc or explain away the
decision rendered by the Supreme Court oil
the United States on Monday last In the
case az HARRIS, &c. These attempts 10 ex-
plain away an important and far-rcaching
decision arc based upon the supposiuon
tba. the decision does not touch the q'ies-
ton OF the right OF negroes to intcrmarry
with whites, 10 demand accommodation al
hotels, 10 ride on the best seats IN ra'iro"o
cars. steamboats,, stages, &C., ana 10 OCCUPY
the most conspicuous chairs in theatres ana
other places OF amusement. AS 10 the
RICH, OF negroes to marry whites Tie same
court win, il Is stated, soon render deci-
sion. The law OF State forbldding such
marriages brings the case within the puf-
view of the amendments, which forbid
the States from doing certain things, and
gives the Federal courts the right to pro-
nounee such law unconstitutional IL IL
finds the law to be unconstitutional. fhat
il all il can do. The other rights named
above, the negro will have to claim
on some other ground than that they
arc secured by the thirteenth. or The Jour
tenth, or the fifteenth amendment, or else
he will not obtain them, 20 completely are
all these amendments ruled OFT 10y the
op,nion OF Justice WOODS. II State law
forbade negroes to be accommodated at
boteis, or 10 have The best seats in theatres,
cars. and steamboats,, then such law
would give TO the Supreme Court OF the
United States the right to pass upon the
oucSion OF the constitutionality OF such
law. But 50 long as determinations
against negroes are made only by private
individuals, no negro can claim the pro-
lection of the amendments. That, as we
understand Il. was the important question
decided by the Supreme Court OF the
United States last Monday. Let Us see il
II was not. We have not the full opinion
of the court, but wesbave enough of 1t.
The Washington Republican published
more than column OF it. We quote as
follows:
a. After briefly stating the case. and say
ing that every valid act OF Congress must
ind in tho Constitution some warrant Tor
ffS l2SSH0p, JNStitt w ONu' llNNNNN' w 'si
examination Of the only four paragraphs
In the Federal Constitution which can in
,bc remotest degree have reference to The
question in contreversy-n section
, Of Article of the original Constitution
and the thirteenth, fourteenth, and ff
tcenth amendments. Taking these up in
inverse order. he briefly disposcs of the
fircenth amendment by saying il is clear
that that amendment can have no appiica-
tfpn 10 the case. since it relates merely TO
The right OF citizens OF the United States |
10 vote. 1t j. equally clear that the sec |
tion in controversy cannot be based |
on the fourteenth amendment. since that |
has reference to Stale action exclusively, |
and not to any action OF private 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; when il has not made or en-
forced any law abridging the privileges or /
inpnunities OF citizens Of the United States;
when no one OF its departments has de- |
prived any person OF life, liberty, or pro- |
perry without due process OF law, or denied |
to any person within its jurisdiction the |
equal protection OF the laws; when, on the |
contrary, the laws Of the State as enacted |
by its legislative, 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-"
The last few lines Of this paragraph are
quoted by the Washington Republican as
proving that Justice WOODS holds that pri-
yate persons may be punished for State
action. When, pray7 Plainly not until
the State had passed some law which they
could plead in justification Of their con-
duct. But no State is going TO pass any
such law.
We are not left in doubt as to what Jus.
tice WOODS intended by his decision. The
case was not new one TO him. He had |
had to decide the same question IN a lower
court. Last summer, in the United States |
Circuit Court IN Texas, the following |
case arose: ISRAEL LEGRAND and two |
other white men had been tried in the |
United States Dstric: Court for the East |
ern District OF Texas, before Judge Nor |
ETIL, for conspiring against anegro named |
DENNIS BoLTON, and foregoing on BOLToN's !
premises and assaulting and shooting him, |
especially for tie purpose Of deprying |
him, the said BoLToY, on account OF his |
said race and color, OF his right and priyi- |
lege 10 give evidence in a certain criminal |
prosecution The constitutionality OF |
the law under which LEGRAND and the |
others were prosecuted was denied by tho |
defence, and Judge MORRILL,, Of the Dis
trlct Court, overrulcd the objection. The |
ease was then taken to the United States |
Circuit Court for Texas, and there Justice !
WoOps reversed the decisios Of Judge
MoRRII l., in IN elaborate opinion, and or
dered that the prisoners should be dis
charged.
Judge WOODS ruled as follows
"When the Constitution fourteenth
amendment) says that no State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridgc the
privileges or immunitles OF citizens OF the
United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person OF life. liberty, or property
without due process OF law; nor deny TO
any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection Of Its laws Congress has no
authority except against the State. When
Lcgrand and others conspired against and
maltreatcd Bolton, it does not follow that
the State Of Texas had abridged Bottoms
privileges and immunties, or denied him
the equal protection Of the laws. Finally,
when State has not violated the Consti-
tuition Congress has 10 power TO punish
individuals who, without having authority
from the state, have been guilty Of such
violation"
Read that again: g When a State has not
riossted the Constitution, Congress has no
potetr 10 punish tndiuidadlS ,cho, ;oihout |