Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1883-11-08


dress against State laws and proceedings
and customs having the force of law which
sanction the wrongful acts specified"
/ "In this connection" he adds, cit is prop
er to State that civil rights, such as are
guaranteed by the Constitution against State
aggression cannot eimpaired by the wrong
full acts of individuals unsupported by State
authority in the shape of laws, customs, or
judicial, or executive proceedings. The
wrongful act of an individual unsupported
by the law of a State, is the crime of that
| individual an evasion of the rights of the
injured party, it is true, whether they affect
his person, his property or his reputation,
but if not sanctioned in some way by the
State or not done under State authority, his
rights remain in full force and may presum-
ably be vindicated by resort to the laws of
the State for redress. An individual cannot
deprive a 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 right in particular case. He may
commit an assault against persons, or COM
nit murder, or use rutfian violence at the
polls, or slander the good name of fellow
citizen, but unless protected in these wrong
full acts by some shield of State law or State
authority he cannot destroy or injure the
right. He will only render himself amena-
BILE to satisfaction or punishment, and amen
able therefor to the laws of the State where
the wrongful acts are committed. Hence
in all those cases where the Constitution
seeks to protect the rights of citizen
against the discriminative and unjust laws
of a State by prohibiting such laws, it is not
individual offences but the abrOgatOn and
denial of rights which it denounces, and
for which it clothes Congress with power to
provide remedy.
If the principles of Interpretation which
we have laid down are correct as we deem
them to be, it is clear that the law in
question cannot be sustained by any grant
Of legislative power made to Congress by the
Fourteenth Amendment.
But the power of Congress to adopt direct
and primary, as distinguished from correct
i've, legislation on the subject in hand, is
sought in the second place, from the Thlr-
teenth Amendment, which abolishes slave
ry. This amendment declares "that neth-
er slavery nor involuntary servitude, except
as punishment for crime whereof a party
shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States or any place SUBJ
iect to their Jurisdiction" and it gives Con-
gress power to enforce the amendment by
appropriate legislation. This amendment,
as we'll as the Fourteenth, is undoubtedly
self executing, without any auxiliary legis-
latiOn, so far as it's terms are applicable to
any existing state of circumstances. By it's
own unaided force and effect it abolished
slavery and established universal freedom.
Still, legislation may be necessary and prop
er to meet all the various cases and clrcum-
stances to be affected by it, and to prescribe
proper modes of redress for it's violation in
letter or spirit, and such legislation may be
primary and direct in its character, for the
| II ,nY,f SC
State laws establishing or uphOlding slave
ry, but an absolute declaration that slavery
or involuntary servitude shall not exist IN
any part Of the United States.
Now, conceding for the sake of argument,
| that admission to an inn, public conveyance
or place of public amusement on equal
terms with all other citizens is the right Of
every man and all classes Of men, is it any
more than one of those rights which States
| by the Fourteenth Amendment are forbid
den to deny to any person? And is the
Constitution violated uptil the denial of the
| right has some State sanction or authority ?
Can the act of. a mere individual owner OF
an inn, public conveyance or place of amuse-
nent refusing accommodation be Justly re-
garded as imposing any badge of slavery or
servitude upon the applicant, or only as
intiicting an ordinary civil injury, properly
cognizable by the laws Of the State and pre-
sumably bject to redress by those laws
until the contrary appears?
After giving to these questions all the
consideration which their Importance de-
mands we are forced to the conclusion that
such an act of refusal has nothing to do
with slavery or involuntary servitude, and
that if it is violative of any right Of the
party his redress is to be sought under the
laws of the State, or if those laws are adverse
| to his rights and do not protect him his
remedy will be found in corrective legisla-
lation which Congress has adopted or may
adopt for counteracting the effect of State
laws or State action prohibited by the Four
teenth Amendment. 1t would be running
the slavery argument into the ground to
make it apply to every act of discrlmina-
| ton which a person may see fit to practice
as to the guests he will entertain, or as to the
people he will take into his coach or cab, or
car, or admit to his concert or theatre, or
deal with in other matters of intercourse or
business. Inn-keepers and public carriers,
| by the law of all States, so far as we are
aware, are bound to the extent of their
facilities to furnish proper accommodation
to all unobjectionable persons who in good
faith apply for them. If the laws them
selves make any unjust discrimination
amenable to the prohibitions of the Four
teenth Amendment, Congress has full power
to afford q remedy under that amendment
and in accordance with it. When a man
has emerged from slavery and by aid Of
beneticient legislation has shaken off the
inSeparable ccncOmitants of that state, there
must be some stage in the progress of his
elevation when he takes the rank Of mere
citizen and ceases to be the special favOrite
of the laws, and when his rights as citizen
or a man are to be protected in the ordinary
modes by which other mems rights are
protected. There were thousands of free
colOred people in this country before the
abolition of slavery enjoying all the essen
same as white citizens, yet no one at that
time thought that it was any invasion Of
their personal status as freemen because
they were not admitted to all the privileges
enjoyed by white citizens, OF because they
were subjected to determinations in the
enjoyment of accommodations in inns, pub
| lie conveyances and places of amusement
| Mere determinations on account of race or
color were not regarded as badges of slavery.
If since that time the enjoyment of equal
rights in all these respects has been estab-
lished by constitutional enactment, it is not
| by force of the Thirteenth Amendment,
(Which merely abolishes slavery,) but by
force of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments.
On the whole we are of opinion that no
countenance Of authority, for the passage OF
the law in question can be found in either
the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments
to the Constitution, and no other ground OF
authority for its passage being suggested 1T
must necessarily be void.
THE SOUTH CAROLINA SENATOR'S ON THE
DECISION.
| r., roro rJ tn tha flppiSinn SnnatOr Wade