Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1883-11-08
5elistellameuns &eadiuq.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS DECISION.
THE TEXT OF JUSTICE BRADLEY'S RECENT
OPINION.

| THE TEIT or u OSiICE Bh1DLEf>o HEC11NI
OPINION.
The following is a revised copy of the
opinion recently delivered in the United
States Supreme Court. in the civil right:
cases:
After quoting the first two sections Of the
Act and stating briefly what he understands
to be their purport and effect, Justice Brad
ley says: elias Congress the constitutions
power to make such law: OF course, nc
one will contend that the power to pass il
was contained in the constitution before tho
adoption of the last amendments. The
power is sought first in the 14th Amendment
The first section, (Which is the one relied
on, } after declaring who shall be citizens Of
the United States and of the several States
! is prohibitOry in it's character, and prohib
| itory upon the States. 1t declares that nc
State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty
or property without due process of law ; nol
deny to any person within its Jurisdiction
the equal projection of the laws. 1t is State
action of particular character that is pro.
hibited. Individual invasion of individual
rights is not the subject matter of the amend
ment. It has a deeper and broader scope
| It nullifies and makes void all State action
of every kind which impairs the privileges
and immunities of citizens of the United
States, or which Injuries them in life, liberty
or property without due process of law, OF
which denies to any of them the equal pro.
lection of the laws. 1t not only does this
but in order that the national will, thus de-
cla-ed, may not be mere 6rott,tne .tulnaen, the
last section of the amendment invests Con-
gress with the power to enforce it by appro'
pirate legislation, to enforce prohibition, to
adopt appropriate legislation for correcting
the effects of such prohibited State laws and
State acts, and thus to render them effectu.
ally null, void and innocuous. This is the
legitimate power conferred upon Congress,
and this is the whole of it. 1t does not in.
vest Congress with power to legislate upon
subjects which are within the domain Of
State legislation, but to provide modes Of
relief against State legislation, or State ac-
ton of the kind referred to. 1t does not au-
thOriZe Congress to create a code Of munich
pal laws for the regulation of private rights
but to provide modes of redress against the
operation of State laws, and the action OF
State officers, executive or judicial, when
these are subversive of the fundamental
rightsspecitied in the amendment. Positive
rights and privileges are undoubtedly Sc.
cured by the Fourteenth Amendment, but
they are secured by the way of prohibition
fecting those rights and privileges, and by
the power given to Congress to legislate for
the purpose Of carrying such prohibition in
to effect, and such legislation must necessa-
rily be predicated upon supposed State laws
or State proceedings, and be directed to the
correction of their operation and effect.
An apt illustration Of this distinction may
be found in some of the provisions of the
original Constitution. Take the subject OF
contracts for example. The Constitution
prohibited States from passing any law i'm
pairing the obligation of contracts. This
did not give to Congress power to provide
laws for the general enforcement of con-
tracts, nor power to invest courts of the Uni
ted States with jurisdiction over contracts,
so as to enable parties to sue upon them in
those courts. 1t did, however, give power
to provide remedies by which impairment
of contracts by State legislation might be
counteracted and corrected, and this power
was exercised. The eremedy which Congress
actually provided was that contained in the
25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1889,
giving to the Supreme Court of the United
States jurisdiction, by writ Of error, to re-
view the final decisions of State courts,
whenever they should SUSTAIN the validity
of a State statute or authority alleged to be
repugnant to the constitution or laws of the
United States. But under that or any other
law it must appear as well by allegation as
proof at trial, that the constitution had been
violated by the action of a State legislature.
Some obnoxious State law passed, or that
might be passed, is necessary to be assumed,
in order to lay the foundation of any FEEDER
al remedy in this case; and for the very
~ hat 4lon st,,fs
hibition is against State laws impairing the
obligation Of contracts. And so in the pres
ent case, until some State law has been
passed, or some State action through its Off
GERS or agents, has been taken adverse to the
rights Of citizens sought to be protected by
the Fourteenth Amendment, no legislation
of the United States under said amendment,
nor any proceeding under such legislation
can be called into activity, for the prohibi-
tions of the amendment are against State
laws and acts done under State authority.
An inspection of the law here in question
shows that it makes no reference whatever
to any supposed or apprehended violation
of the 14th Amendment on the part OF
States. 1t is not predicated on any such
view. 1t proceeds e.r directo to declare that
certain acts committed by individuals shall
be deemed offences, and shall be prosecuted
of the United States. 1t does not profess to
be corrective Of any constitutional wrong
committed by States. 1t does not make its
operation to depend upon any such wrong
committed. Itapplies equally to cases aris-
ing in States which have the justest laws
respecting personal rights of citizens, and
whose authorities are ever ready to enforce
su> laws, as to those which arise in States
that may have violated the prohibition OF
the amendment. In other words, it steps
into the domain of local Jurisprudence and
lays down rules for the conduct of individ.
uals in society towards each other, and i'm
poses sanctions for the enforcement of those
rules, without referring in any manner to
any supposed action of a State or its author
tiles. If this legislation appropriate for en-
forcing the prohibition Of the amendment,
it is sufficient to see where it is to stop.
Why may not Congress, with equal show OF
authority, enact code of laws for the en-
forcement and vindication of all rights of
life, liberty and property? If it is not sup
possible that the States may deprive persons
of life, liberty and property, without due
process Of law, (and the amendment itself
does suppose thisD why should not Congress
proceed at once to prescribe due process OF
law for the protection of every one of these
fundamental rights in every possible case,
as well as 10 prescribe equal privileges ii!
inns, public cOnveyances and theatres
The truth is that the implication of power
to legislate in this manner is based upon the
assumption that if States are forbidden tC
legislate or act in particular way on a par,
ticular subject, and power is conferred upon
Congress to enforce the prohibition, this
gives Congress power to legislate generally
upon that subject and not merely power tc
provide modes of redress against such State
legislation or action. The assumption is