Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-10-16
Important Decision b. the Supreme
Court Yesterday.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL VOID.
Congress Has 10 Right to Legislate fer
the Several States.
VICTORY FOX STATE RIGHTS IDEAS
The Congressional Election Law Also
Declared Unconstitutional.
Especial Telegram to the Globe.I

Especial Telegram to the Globe.I
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15.-Letters have
been received from Senator Don Cameron
which renders it very doubtful whether he
will take his seat in the senate until after
the Christmas holidays. He has improved
in health, but is still wanting in sufficient
healla to justify return to his political
duties. In any question of recognizing
the officers Of the senate it is likely that
under the circumstances, absence being
caused by illness, he could maintain lis
pair with Butler, of South Carolina.
CIVIL RIGHTS AC T UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
WASHINGTON, Oct. ia decision was
rendered y the supreme court in five civil
rights cases, based Oh the first and second
sections of the civil rights act Of March l.
They are respectively prosecutions under
the act for not admitting certain colored
persons to equal accom- Aodations and
privileges IN inns or hotels, in railroad cars
and theatres, The court held that con-
gress had no constitutional authority to
pass the sections in question under either
the thirteenth or fourteenth amendmentsof
the. constitution. The decision, however,
is held to apply only to its validity IL
states, and not IN territories, or in the Dis
trict OF Columbia, il which the power of
congress is unlimited so far as statutes er8
concerned. The second sections of the
law above referred TO are unconstitutional
Justice Arnold rendered the opinion, JUS
tice Harlan dissenting.
= FURTHER REToRT.
4 most important deciso OF was rendered by
the supreme court Of the United States N the
i've cases commonly known as tie civil rights
cases, which were submitted to the coult on
printed arguments about year ago. The titles
OF these cases and the states from which they
come are as follows: No. United States
against Kansas; No. 2-Uuited States against
Michael RYAN. from the United States circuit
court of the district of California; No. q
United States against Samuel Nichols, from the
United Stats circuit court OF the western dis
trIct OF Missouri; No. Z6-U United States against
Daniel G. Singleton, from the United States
district court for the southern district of New
York: No. 28-Rchard 4. Robinson and wife
against the Memphis & Charleston Railroad
company from the United States circuit court
for the district of Tennessee. These cases were
all based on the first and second sections of the
civil rights act of 1875, and were respectively
prosecutions under that act for not admitting
certain coiored persons to equal accommoda-
OiOL5 anu priv Ltcs5SS IL VI uOlclS, IL
cars or IN theaters. The defense set up in every
case was the alleged unconstitutionality of the
law. The first and second sections of the act,
which were the parts directly in controversy, are
as follows:
First. The first section of the act provides
that all persons within the jurisdiction of the
United States shall be entitled to the full and
equal enjoyment of accommodations, adTanta-
ges, fare of privileges and inns, public
cOnveyanees on land and water, theatres and
other places of public amusement, subject only
to the conditions an1 limitations established by
law and applicable alike to citizens of every
race and color regardless of any previous condi
ton Of servitude. The second section provides
that persons who violate the first section, shall
be liable forfeit i've hundred dollars for each
Offense, to be recovered in civil action, and also
TO penalty of from $500 to $1,000 fine, or i'm
prisonment from thirty days to q year, to be en-
forced n criminal prosecution. Exclusive iu-
risdiction Is given to the district and circuit
courts of the United States in cases arising IN
der the law.
The rights and privileges claimed by and denied
cClored people n these acts were full and equal
accommodations IL hotels IN ladies cars on rail-
road trains and N the dress circle of theatres.
The court IL a long and carefully prepared
opinion by Justice Bradley holds:
First. That congress had no constitutional
authority to pass the ectiOns In question, under
e ther the thirteenth or fourteenth amendments
to the constitution.
Second. That the fourteenth amendment IS
prOhiLitury upon the states only and that legis-
iatiou Is ID rein TO be adopted By kcongress for
enforcing INT amendment, Is not direct legisIa-
ton the mater respecting which states are
DTohIbij2d from making or enforcing certain
law, ocIeFI1g certain acts, but is corrective
legislation necessary or proper for cOunteract-
lug and reCressIIg the effects of such laws. In
forb-ddIng the states, for example, to deprive
any person OF their liberty or property without
due process OF law, and giving congress power to
enforce the prohibition, 1t was not intended to
give congress power to provide due process of
law for protection of life and property, which
woIld emb almost all subjects of legisla-
ton, but 10 provide modes OF redress for count
eracdng the operation and effect OF state laws
obnoxious to the prohibition,
Third. That the thirteenth amendment gives
no power 70 congress to pass the sections refer
red to, because that amendment relates only to
slaAery and involuntary servitude, which it aboI-
ished and gives congress power to pass laws for
its enforcement. That this power only extends
to the subject matter of the zmendmeut itself
namely slavery and involuntary servitude. and
the incidents and consequences Of those coudi-
tiOus; that it has nothing to do with different
races or color, but only refers to slavery, the
legal equality OF different races and classes of
citizens being pro Fided for In the fourteenth
amendment. which prohibits states from doing
1t Is 10 infringement Of the thirteenth amend
meut to 70 use 30 any person equal accommOda-
tons anI privileges at ~ inn place OF public
entet ttaiaInelt, however It nay be violation Of
his legal rights. That it imposes upon him no
badge of slavery - inyO untary servitude,
which is simply soma sort OF subsection of one
person 10 another aud the incapacItY incident
thereto, sach as the inability to hold property,
to make contracts, TO be parties IN seOUrt, etc.
And that if the original civil rights act, which
abolished these iGcs spaeiGes, might be support
ed by the thirteenth amendment it does not
therefore follow that the act of rs can be sup
ported by It.
ssFourth. That this decision affects only the
validity Of the law In states and not IN territor-
les or the District ofColumbia, where the legis-
Iative power of congress is unlimited, andit does
rot undertake to decide what congress might or
might not do under the power to regulate COM
nerce with foreign nations and among the sew
eral states, the law not being drawn with any
s1eh power.
Fifth. That therefore ii is the opinion of the
court that the first and second sections of the
act OF &C ress of March 1st, 1875, entitled, ''An
act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal
rights" are unconstitutional and Judgment
should be rendered upon the indictments ae-
cordinQly.''
JUSTICE HARLAN'S DISSENT.
At conclusion of the reading of Justice Brad
Lewis oriniOn which occzniad moro +bo, an