The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1883-10-16
EXIT CIVIL RIGHTS.
Comprehensive Synopsis of the
Decision Setting the Law Aside.

| Comprehensive Synopsis of the
Decision Setting the Law Aside,
Washington, 15.-The most i'm
portant decision rendered by the
Supreme Court Of the United States
today, was that in five cases COM
monty known as the civil rights
cases, which were submitted to the
court on printed arguments about a
year ago. The title Of these cases
and the states from which they
came are as follows: No. 1, United
States against Mary Stanley, from
United States circuit court, District
of Kansas. No. 2, United States
| against Michael Ryan, from United
States circuit court, District of Cali
fornia. No. 8, United States against
Samuel Nichols, from Uuited States
circuit court, Western District Of
Missouri. No. 4, United States
against Samuel d. Singleton, from
| United States circuit court for the
Southern District of New York, and
No. 5, Richard A. 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 priv
ileges in inns or hotels and railroad
cars and in theatres. The defense
set up in every case was the alleged
unconstitutionality Of the laws.
The first and second sections of
the act, which were the rarts
directly in controversy, are as
follows: Section /, That all pers, ms
within the jurisdiction of the United
States shall be entitled to full and
equal enjoyment Of the accommoda-
tions, advantages, facilities and
privileges, inns, public conveyances
on land and water, theatres and
other places of public amusement,
subject only to the conditions and
limitations established by law and
applicable alike to every race and
color regardless of any previous con-
ditiOn of serYitude. Section 2 pro-
vides that any person who violates
the first section shall be liable to a |
forfeit Of $500 for each offense, to
be recovered in civil action, and
also to a penalty of from $500 to !
$1,000 fire or imprisonment from
thirty days to year, to be enforced
in a criminal prosecution. Exclu- |
sive jurisdiction, is given to dis
trict and circuit courts of the Uni |
ted 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' cars, on railway trains, and
in the dress circle in theatres. The
court in a long and carefully pre-
pared opinion by Justice Bradley,
hold, first that Congress had no
Constitutional authority to pass the
sections in question under
either the thirteenth or i
fourteenth amendment as plohibi-
tory upon States only, and that the
legislation authorized to be adopted |
by Congress for enforcing the
amendment is not direct legislation
on matters respecting which the
States are prohibited from making |
or enforcing acts, but is corrective !
legislation, necessary or proper for |
counteracting and redressing the
effect of such laws or acts; that in |
forbiddiDg the States, as for exam
pie, to deprive any persons Of liberty
or property without due process of
law and giving Congress power to |
euforce prohibition, it was not in
tended to give Congress power to !
provide due process Of law for pros
lection of life, liberty and property