New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-01-23
TIE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.

CLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL ia lhb 81" i--"h
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
WASHINGTON, Jan. pa decision was'ren-
dercd by the Supreme of the United states to-day
in the mportant constitutional of the United States
against II. c. Harris and others, brought here upon
certificate Of division Of opinion from the United states
Circuit Court for tho Western Circuit Of Tennessee
This is one Of the four five so-called "cvli rights
cases which Submitted TO tls court upoh printed
briefs in the early part Of the october term OF lsSo
There were that time number OF vacancies on te
bench of the court, and in view of t2 M ortapcc oi
the questions involved il was thought - 10 set aside
only before a full bench. When the present case came
up Y and instead OF being orally argued It
was agnin submitted behalf Of the United states on
the printed brief OF the solcilorGcnea Ihe Interest,
of the defendant aud OF the state OF tennessee were m
without argument to the care OF the Court
The facts of which this litigation arises so lar as
thev are Endorsed by the record and the peadnes are
briefly AS follows Some time in the year le77 four ct
zcns of Ieunesscc-suppOscd 10 De cOioIeu men,
although not described in the rccord-wee arrested
by one Tucker deputy sheriff. upon warrants Issued by
Justice Of the peace, and he 10 answer certain vi
in tho custody the deputy sheriff these four prisoners
attacked by an armed body OF men, OF ~hoh me
defendant Harris one and 50 severely beaten,
wonnded and inaltreated that r. ~ wills one OF their
number died from the effects OF his injuries An indlc
ment found by the Grand Jury HeMhst Harris .i,G
his associates of the attacking party charging thcn Win
Toned of their right the due and equal protection Of
the laws OF Tennessee and Of their night TO protected
fro II violence while under arrest The defendants
dcmurred TO the Indictment on The grounds inst that
the offences created by Section 559 OF the Revised
of the courts of the United STATES but snizabc by
state tribunals only; and, second, that the ead section
penalties violation Of the Federal Constitution ana
an infringement OF the rights OF me several states ana
of the cut Court found themselves unable 10 agicc a.
10 the consnuonality OF me sectioh OF me l' ls,
ute above referred to- aud certified the question 10 TINS
court for decision. The section is ~ follows
n two or more persons in any State or crritory
con.p,re or 90 in disguise on the highwny on the
premises another for the purpose OF dcpying either
directly indirectly, any person or class o ptt0 oil
he ruu
and imnLnitics under the laws or l0i the PURPOSE O
preventing or hindering the constituted authorities OF
any state or Territory fIOm giving securing 10 all
persons within such State Territory the equal protcc.
by fine OF not less than $500 than 5000 or
by imprisonment with or without hard labor not less
than Six months nor more than six years or by both
such fine aud imprisonment" ,
The decision Of this Court was announced IN long
ana carefully prepared opinion by Mr., Justice Woods
After briefly stating the case ana saying tlat every
valid act OF Congress must NM III 'ie SOM
warrant for It's passage Justice WOODS IDGees 20 h
examination OF the only Ionr parasials IN ihe leiir
Constitution which can IN the rcHOtcst degree nave
referen,e to the question IN conrOveIs! nHe IN e.
ton of article OF the original Constitution ana the
Thirteenth. Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments,
Taking these up In inverse ORDER ne 9iley dso'e5 o
the Fifteenth Amendment by saying It Is clear That at
amendment can have no application 10 the case since
relates mainly to the right OF eil1ens Oh inc ohlteu
States 10 vote IL Is equally clear thit thc section III
ment since has reference 70 state action exclusively
and not any action Of private individuals The Ian
doubt when the State has been guilty OF no violation OF
its provisions, when 1t mas moi made or enforced any law
abdging the privileges immlntcs of citizens OF the
UnitedStatcs when OF It's departments mas deprived
any ncrson of life IN erty or property without due pro-
cess denied TO any person within its iuris-
dictOn the equal protection Of the laws when on the
contrary the laws of the state enacted by its egsa
tive construed by its Judicial and administered by its
executive departments, recognize aud pro ect the right
OF all persons, the amendment imposes no duty and
confers no pow upon Congress.
Section 1919 is not limited to take effect only in case
the state shall abfdgc tie privileges or nmitles OF
citizens OF the United States or deprive any persons OF
life Liberty or property Without Gas SeeS IS 81 t N OF
deny TO any person the equal protection Oh tne a"s'
1t applies matter how well the state may nave per
formed its duty. Under IL private persons are liable TO
punishment for conspillng TO deprive anyone Oh inc
equal protection Of the laws enacted by the state
In the indictment in this for instance. which
would be good Indictment under the law If the law
itself valid there II no intimaton that the Sac OF
Tennessee has passed any law or done any act forbid
den by the Fourteenth Amendment On the contrary
the grayanen of the charge against the accused Is that
To- Co., sGnrlcd them by the laws of Tennessee
Since therefore, the section of the Revised Statutes
der consideration il directed exclusively against the
action of private gperOns without reference to the laws
of inc state or their administration by the officers of the
warranted by any clause In the Fourteenth Amendment
The Court is next TO consider whether the Thirteenth
Amendment furnishes authority Tor the enactment OF
the law under review. This amendment declares that
neither slavery involuntary seryitudc except as
punishment OF crime whereof the pity s1 nan
have been duly convicted, shall exist within me
United States or any pace sn,geet e. l" ,, oren
jurisdiction. Congress SHAH have power 10 enforce,
ihis article by appropriate legislation" Does thls
amendment warrant the enactment OF section O'olV OIL
the revised statutesf Ia the OPINION % M o ~ o.,
not, and this conclusion is based tn the Ict tha Le
provisions Of that section are broader than the if
! teenth Amendment would justify Under that
section it would be offence Tor two or
more white persons To conspire for the Puipose
OF deprivng another white person Of the equal proec
ton the laws IL would be offence for two or more
colo ed persOns-eniranchsed sayesto cOnspife with
! the same purpose against white citizen or against
another cOiOrcd citizen who bad never
been slave. Even If the amendment u
held to be directed against the action Of private ind
vduas well against the action OF the states aud OF
the United States law under cOnsde alton
cases both within and without the provisions OF the
I amendment. IL covers any conspiracy between two
free white men against any other free white TO de-
prive latter of any right accorded him by the laws
! of the State or OF the Unite I States.
Tie Court as above appears has been unable 20 find
any constitutional authority for the enactment Of sec
tion 55g the revised statutes The point IN reference
10 which the Judges oil the Circuit Court divided IN
opinion must be decided against the constuOnaily Of
| the law. =. , ,
case of the sun Mutual Insurance Company. Ot New
York City, agt. the Ocean Insurance Company ot Fort