Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-10-17
TEE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL DECISION.

It cannot be said that the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States, hold
ing the first and second sections of the ''Act
to protect all citizens in their civil and legal
rights, approved March l, 1875, invalid
as to the States, but binding as to the
Territories, is unexpected by those who
have studied the subject in the past.
At the time of its passage the legality of
the Act involved in grave doubt some of
the best friends of the negro. 1t has long
been the opinion of many leading jurists of
the country that the Act was an exercise of
power by the Federal Government in
excess of the authority intended to be
conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment.
In the debates upon the bill the very OBJ
iections were raised to it, by thoughtful
minds, which the Supreme Court now sus-
tains. The first section of the Act reads
Section l. That all persons within the jurisdic
ton of the United States shall be entitled to the full
and equal enjoyment Of the sccommod atons ad-
Vautages, facilities and PRIVILEGES Of inns, public
cOnveyances on land or water, theaters, and other
places OF pubic amusement SuOltcb only 30 Jne
conditions and limitations established by law, and
applicable alike to citizens of every and color
regard ess of any previous condition of seryitude
Section provides that the violation OF Section
by denial of the privileges secured, except for law
full reasons to citizens of any race or Color and re-
gardess Of any previous condition OF servitude,
shall be deemed crime, punishable by fine or i'm
piisonment and by forfeiture to the person
aggre ged Of $500 penalty and costs. 1t gives the
right TO sue for the penalties at common law or
under State statute.
The case before the Supreme Court in.
voIved the question of denial of rights and
privileges to colored citizens in inns, on
vehicles of public transportation and in
places Of public amusement, by individu-
ais, and not pursuant to State laws. The
chief Of the cases was that OF Robin
son and wife against the Memphis and
Charleston Railroad Company. The Su.
preme Court holds that the authority did
not reside in the Federal Congress to pass
the Act either under the Thirteenth or
Fourteenth Amendments to the Consti-
tuition, because those amendments are pro-
hibitory upon the legislation of States only,
while the legislation which Congress might
properly indulge in to enforce the amend
ments is corrective only. These amend.
ments, or so much of them as are vital to
this consideration, are
ARTICLE XIII.
Section / Neither slavery nor involuntary servi-
tnde except as punishment for crime, whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
in the United States or any place subject to their
section ? Congress shall have power to enforce
this Article by appropriate legislation.
Declared in force December Is, 1865
ARTICLE XIV.
Section ! Ali persons born naturalized in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction there
of are citizens of the United States, and Of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce auv law which shall abrdge the privileges
or immunites Of citizens of the United States;
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 protee-
ton of the laws.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power TO en-
force, by appropriate legislation, the provisions OF
Declared in force July 2s, 1881
The Court holds that The legislation au-
thorized to be adopted by Congress for en-
forcing either of these amendments is not
direct legislation upon the matters re-
specting which States are prohibited by
Che amendments from making or enforc-
ing acts. 1t was not intended, says the
Cart. for instance, that the forbidding
Il : State to deprive a citizen Of liberty