The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-01-23

sion OF the Court ana EinDofatcs tie
Points in Questionable Fifteenth, Four
teenth, and Thirteenth Amendments
Taken Up SerIatini--Justice Harlan Dis
sents Upon che Questions OF Jurisdiction.
WAsHlNGToy, January PA decision
was rendered by the Supreme Court OF the
United States to-day in the important con-
stitutional case OF the United States against
r. G.. Harris ct al, brought here upon a
certificate Of difference OF opinion among
the Judges OF the United States Circuit
Court for the Western district OF Tennes-
see. The particular question presented
here Is the constituiionality Of section 5j19
OF the Revised Statutes. The section Is rs
follows:
"If two or more persons in any State or
Territory conspire, or 90 In disguise on
the highway, or on the premises OF an
other, for the purpose Of depriying. either
directly on indirectly, any person or class
OF persons Of the equal protection Of the
laws. or OF the equal privileges and immu-
mites Of the law, or for the purpose Of
preventing or hindering the constituted
authorities Of any State or Territory from
giving or securing to all persons within
such State or Territory equal protection Of
law. each OF such persons shall lie punish
ed Ly fine OF not less than $500 nor more
than $1,000, with imprisonment with or
without hard labor not less than six
months nor more than six years, or by both
such line and imprisonment
THE COURT HOLDS
in an elaborate opinion by Justice Woods
1t poatfon IL ,r usft.YaAYfo1 l.,s fia
authority OF the Federal Constitution. and
that its enactment was beyond the powers
OF Congress. This is one Of the four or
five so-callcd "ciyil-rights cases" which
were submitted TO this court upon printed
briefs in tie early part OF The October term
OF 1880. There were at that time n num-
Der Of vacancies on the bench OF the court,
and in view OF the importance OF tSe
questions involved 1t was thought
best TO set aside the submission of
these cases and order them TO be argued
orally before 4 full bench. When the pre-
sent case came up for hearing. in Noyem-
Der last, no counsel appeared for The de-
PENDANTS, and instead OF being orally argued
# was again submitted on behalf OF the
United States on the printed brief OF the
encral. The interests Of the de-
PENDANTS and OF the State of Tennessee were
left, without argument, TO the care OF TIE
courts.
HISTORY OF TIE CASE.
The facts out OF which this litigation
arises, so far as they are disclosed by the
record and pleadings. are briefly as follows
Some time in the year 1877 four citizens
OF Tennessee, supposed to be colored men,
although not 50 described in the record,
were arrested by one Tucker, n deputy
sheriff, upon warrants issued by Justice
OF the peace, and held to answer certain
criminal charges. the nature OF which Is
not set forth. While in custody of the
deputy sheriff these four prisoners were
attacked by an armed body Of men, OF
whom the defendant Harris was one, and
50 severely beaten, wounded, and mai
treated that p. NJ. Wells, one OF their
died from the effects Of his
injuries. An indictment was found by
the grand Jury against Harris and bis ASSOC
cia,es OF the attacking PARTY, under section
1913 OF the Revised Statutes, charging
them with conspiracy TO deprive the four
prisoners above mentioned OF their right
TO the due and equal protection OF the laws
of Tennessee and OF their right TO lie pro-
te:ted from violence while under arrest.
The defendants dcmuTed to the ludict-
ment on the Cr0unds-iirst, that the Of
fences created by section 5jl9 OF the Re-
yiscd Statutes are not constitItionally
within the jurisdiction OF the courts "a the
United States, but are cOgniZablc by the
State tribunals only; and second, that SAID
section 5Jl9, in so far rs il creates offences
and imposes penalties, is in violation Of the
Federal Constitution and an infringement
OF the rights of the several States and Of
the people thereof. Upon the trial Of the
ease the judges Of the Circuit Court found
themselves unable 10 agree as 10 the consti-
nationality OF the section Of the Revised
Statute. above referred TO, and certified
the question to this court for decision.
JUSTICE wOoDs's DEDUCTIONS.
After briefly stating the case. and saying
that every valid Sct OF Congress must lind
in tht Constitution some warran; for its
passage, Justice Woods proceeds 10 m eX-
animation Of only four paragraphs in the
Federal Constitution which can in tie re-
mOtcst degree have reference to the ques-
ton in contrOYcrsy-nameiy section II OF
Article OF the original Constitution, and
the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth
amendments. Taking these up in inverse
order. he briefly disposCs OF the fifteenth
am ssSmcnt by saying 1t is clear that that
amendment can have no application 10 the
ease, since il relates merely to the right Of
citizcus OF the Ulited States TO vote. It i,
equally clear that the section in contro-
ycrsy cannot be based on
TIE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
since that has reference to state action ex-
clusiyely, and not TO any action Of private
individuals. The language OF the amend.
mcnt does not leave this subject In doubt.
When 4 State has been guilty Of no yiola-
ton Of its provisions; when it has not
mrde or enforced any law abridging the
privileges or Immunities OF citizens OF the
United States; when no one OF its depart
mems has deprived any person OF life,
Ii Lerty, OF property without due process
OF law. or denied to any person within
its jurisdiction equal protection OF the
laws: when, on the contrary, the laws
of State as enacted by its legis-
latiye, construed by its judiciary, and
administered by its executive depart
ments recognize and protect the rights OF
all persons, the amendment imposes no
duty and coniers no power upon Congress.
Section 5519 is not limited TO take effect
ONLY in case IL State shall abridge the priyi-
leges OF immunities OF citizens Of the
United States, or deprive any person OF
life, liberty, or property without due pro-
cess OF law, or deny to any person the
equal protection Of The laws. 1t applies
no matter how well State may have per
formed its duty. Under il private persons
are liable to punishment for consptring to
deprive any one Of the equal protection OF
the laws enacted by the state.
Since, therefore, The section OF the Revised
Statutes under consideration IL directed
exclusively against The action OF private
persons. without reference to the laws OF a
State or their administration by the officers
OF State, the Court il clear in the opinion