Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-10-26
CIVIL RIGHTS.
TEE POINTS OF TIE RECENT DE-
CTSION OYERTURNTNG TIE LAW.
The Opinion of The Court Fully Set Forth
by Justice Bradiey-Congress Has No
Right to Regulate individual Action.

Right to Regulate individual Action.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 25.
The following are the points OF the de-
cision of the supreme court in the civil
rights cases. After quoting the first two
sections of the act, Justice Bradley, who
delivered the opinion, says: "Has con-
gress the constitutional power to make
such Law? Of course no one will contend
that the power to pass it was contained in
the constitution before the adoption of the
last three amendments. Power is sought
first in the fourteenth amendment, first
section, which is the one relied on. After
declaring who shall be citizens of the
United States and the several states, it is
prohibitory in It's character and prohibi-
tory upon the states. 1t is state action of
particular character that is prohibited
The individual invasion Of individual
rights is not the subject matter
of the amendment. Ii has
q deeper and broader scope.
It molliGes and makes void all state Iegis-
lation and slate action of every kind,
which impsirs the privileges of immuni-
ties of citizens of the q. S. or which in
jured them il life, liberty or prosperity,
without due process law, or which denies
toany of them the equal projections OF
the laws. 1t not only does this, but in
order that the national will thus declared
may not be more brutum f,tInen the last
section of the amendment invests congress
with power to enforce it by appropriate
legislation. To enforce prohibition. To
adopt appropriate legislation for correct
ing the effects of such prohibited state
laws and state acts, and thus render
ed them effectually null, void
and inocuous. This is then
legislative 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 &C.
ton of tina kind referred to. Until some
state law has been passed or some state &C
ton through its officers or agents has been
taken adverse to the rights of citizens
sought to be protected by the fourteenth
amendment to the constitution of the
United States, any proceeding under such
legislation cannot be called into activi-
ty, for the prohibitions amend
ments are against state laws,
and acts done under state authority. An
inspection of the law here in question
shows that 1t applies equally to cases arts
ing in states which have just laws respect
ing the personal rights of citizens, and
whose authorities are ever ready to enforce
such laws, as to those which arise in state
that may have violated the prohibitions at
tached. In other words, it steps into the
domain of local jurisprudence and lays
down rules for the conduct of individuals
in society towards each other, and imposes
sanctions for the enforcement of those
rules, without referring in any manner TO
any supposed action of the state or
its authorities. If this legislation is
appropriate for enforcing the prohibition
amendment is it difficult to see where it is
to stop. Why may not congress with an
equal show of authority, enact a code OF
laws for the enforcement and vindication
Of all rights to life, liberty and property?
II it is supposabie that states may deprive
persons of life, liberty and property with l.out
due process of law, and The amendment
itself does suppose it, should not congress
proceed at once to prescribe by due pro-
cess of law for the protection of everyone
in these lights in every possible case as
we'll as to prescribe equal privileges in
inns, public cOnveyances and theaters?
Judge Bradley refers to the civil rights
bill of April 4tb, 1866, and shows it is
clearly corrective in its character, intended
to counteract and furnish redress against
state laws and proceedings, and customs
having the force of law, which sanction
the wrongful acts specified. SIN this con-
neotion," he adds, sit is proper to state
that civil rights, such as are guaranteed by
by the constitution against state aggres
sion, cannot be impaired by wrongful acts
of individuals unsupported by state author
ity in the shape of laws, customs or Judicial
or executive proceedings. The wrongful
acts of an individual, unsupported by any
such authority, is simply private wrong,
or crime of that individual, an invasion
of the rights of the injured party, it is
true, whether they effect his person, his
property or his reputation. But If not
sanctioned in some way by the state Or
not done under it's authority, his rights re-
main in full force and may personally be
indicated by resorts to the laws of the
state for redress. An individual cannot
deprive man of his right to vote, to hold
property, to buy and sell, to sue in courts,
or to be witness Or Juror.
He may, by force, or fraud,
Interfere with the enjoyment of the right
in particular case; he may commit an
assault against the person, or commit
murder, or use ruffian violence at him, or
SANDER the good name of a fellow citizen,
but unless protected in these wrongful
acts by some shield Of state law or state
authority, he cannot destroy or injure the
right. He will only render himself amen
able to satisfaction or punishment, and
amenable, therefore, to the laws Of the
state where the wrongful acts are com
mitted. If the principles of
Interpretation We have laid down
are correct, as we deem them
to be, it is clear the law in question will
not be sustained by any grant of legisla-
tive power Of congress, or by the four
teenth amendment, but to adopt the direct
and primary, as distinguished from cor
rective legislation on the subject in hand,
as sought in the second place from the
thirteenth amendment, which amendment
abolished slavery aud gives congress
power to enforce the amendment by ap-
propriate legislation. This amendment,
as we'll as the fourteenth, is undoubtedly