Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-10-25
THE CIVIL RIGHTS DECISION.
RensGi,ir.g Of the Court.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS DECISION.
Reasoning Of the Court.
HOW ITS CONCLUSIONS WERE REACHED
Justice Bradley, who gave expression to he DC
cisiOn OF the United States Supreme Court recently
in the civil rights eases. has just received from the
printer the first revised copy OF his opinion. Al
though its salient features We're fairly We'll SET
forth In the abstract made for the press at the
time, its reasoning and the steps by which the
court reached its conclusions the several points
involved are new and interesting.
UNcoNsTITUT1oNALTY OF TIE ACT.
After quoting the first two sections OF the act and
stating briefly what he understands to be their
purpOrt and effect, Justice Bradley says: "Has
Congress 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 The
power is sought first in the 18th amendment. Z.
The first section > (which is the one relied
on), after declaring who shall be citizens OF the
torV "a nnGS S + sa
1t declares that no state shall make enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immuni-
state deprive any person OF life liberty or property
without due process of law; nor deny to any per-
son within its jurisdiction the equal protection Of
ter that is prohibited. Individual invasion of indi-
yldual rights is not the subject-matter Of the
lation and state action of every kind which
mRss aasns of ae tbs pvsgns sa asa se nmiS WO Of
Injuries them in life, liberty OF property
without due process Of law, OR which denies to
not only does this but, in order that the national
will, thus declared may not be mere brutu,a JtN-
men, the last section OF the amendment invests
Congress with power to enforce 1t by appropriate
legislation. To enforce what7 70 enforce the pro-
hb:ion. To adopt appropriate legislation for cor
rectng the effects of such prohibited statelaws and
render them
void, and inOcuOuS. This is
THE LEGISLATIVE POWER CONFERRED UPON con-
GRESS,
and this is the whole OF it, 1t does not invest Con-
gress 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 action of the kind referred to. 1t does not
authorize Congress to create a code of municipal
law for the regulation of private rights but to pro-
vide modes OF redress against the operation OF state
laws and the action Of state officers, executive or
judicial. when these are SubverSlve OF the funda-
mental rights specified in the amendment. Posi-
tive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured
by the XIV. amendment; but they are secured by
way of prohibition against state laws, and state
proceedings affecting those rights and privileges,
and by power given to Congress to egislate for the
purpose OF carrying such prohibition into effect
and such legislation must necessarily be predicated
upon such supposed state laws or state proceedings
and be directed to the correction of their operation
AN APT ILLUSTRATION
OF this distinction may be found In some Of the pro-
Visions OF the original Constitution. Take the sub
Ject of contracts, for example. The Constitution
prohibited the states from passing any law impair
ing the obligation of contracts. ThtS did not give
TO Congress power to provide laws for the general
endorsements of contracts: nor power to invest the
courts OF the United States with jurisdiction over
in those courts 1t did, however. give the power to
provide remedies by which the impairment of con-
and corrected; and this power vas exercised The
remedy Wnlcn Congress actually provided was that
contained In the 18th section Of the judiciary act Of
1879, giving to the Supreme Court of the United
States Jurisdiction by writ OF error to review the
final decisions of state courts whenever they should
alleged to be repugnant to the Constitution or laws
of the United States =.
But under that or any othersaw it must appear
as well by allegation as proof at the trial. that the
Constitution had been violated by the action of the
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
federal remedy In the case and for the very sufi-
against state latcs mpairng the obligation OF con-
tracts And SO in the present case, until some
through its oce or has been sea ad
verse TO the rights OF citizens sought to be pro-
tected by the 14th amendment, no legislation OF the
united states under said amendment, nor any pro-
ceed1ng under such legislation can be called into
activity for the prohibitions OF the amendment are
against state laws and acts done under state au-
=, An inspection of the law here in question shows
tnat makes no reference whatever to any Supposed
or apprehended violation of the 14th amendment on
the part OF the states 1t Is not predicated on any
such view. 1t proceeds eI directO to declare that
deemed offenses, and shall be prosecuted and pun
1shed by proceedings In the courts Of the United
States.
1T DOES NOT PROFESS 10 BE CORRECTIVE
OF any constitutional wrong committed by the
states 1t does not make its operation to depend
tod
equally to cases arising In states which have the
Jlstest laws respecting the personal rights Of cii-
zens, and ~ whose authorities are ever ready to
that may have violated the prohibition of the
amendment az, ,aiIH In other words, it steps into
ne eqan or tne Of fos fa n5 and
wards each other, and imposes sanctions for the
enforcement OF those rules, without referring in
It's authorities.
WHERE IS 1T TO STOP?
II this legislation is appropriate for enforcing the
prohibition OF the amendment it is difficult to see
where it is to stop. Why may not Congress, with
equal show of authority, enact code of laws for
life liberty and property? If it is not supposable
that the states may deprive persons OF life liberty
and the se aaf does os ts
to prescribe due process ef law FOR the protection
OF every one Oh these fundamental rights in every
possible case, as well as to prescribe equal privi-
leges In inns. public conveyances and theatels?
The truth is, that the implication of power to
legslate IN this manner is based upon the assump-
ton that If the states forbidden to legslate or
act In particular way on particular subject, and
proh;t,o y 1s upon CONGRESS TO enforce the
late generally upon that subject, and not merely
power 10 provide modes OF redress against such
state LEGISLATION Or action The assumption is
ta1niy unS0und 1t is repugnant to the 10th amend
ment OF the Constitution, which declares that
powers not delegated to the United States by the
COnSttutlOn nor prohibited by it to the States are
reserved 10 the states respectively or to the people"
THE COLOR LINE IN JURIEs.
Justice Bradley then refers to the fact that the
4th section of the act under consideration, which
relates to discrimination on account of race or color
In the selection of Jurors, has been held by the
court to be constitutional He points out, however
that disqualifcations for service jures are only
created Dy state statutes enforced by state Off
GERS and says; sIhis aspect OF the law was deemed
sufficient to dvest it of any unconstitutional char
acter and makes it differ widely from the first and
second sections OF the same act which we are now
considering"
THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, OF 1866.
He also refers to the civil rights bill OF April 4,
1885, and shows that that too 1s clearly corrective
In its character intended to cOnteract and furnish