Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1883-10-26

~ kOO0.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS DKCIslON.
1t is rather surprising, says the New
York Sun, that 20 much excitement has
been caused in some parts of the country
by the decision of the Supreme Court Of
the United States adjudging the first and
second sections Of the Civil Rights Act
Of 1875 to be unconstitutional and void.
All the previous utterances of the Su-
rreme Court relating to the scope and
effect Of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution, upon
which the Civil Rights Act was based,
had indicated that whenever the question
was fairly presented the Judges would
hold that Congress had no power to pass
such . law.
The Act Of 1875 provided that all per-
sons within the jurisdiction of the United
States should be entitled to the full and
equal enjoyment of accommodations, ad-
vantages, facilities and privileges of inns,
public conveyances on land and water,
theaters and other places of public
amusement, and prescribed severe penal.
ties for the denial of such privileges.
The Supreme Court says that this legis-
latioE cannot be sustained under the
Thirteenth Amendment, because that
Amendment applies only to slavery
and involuntary servitude, and gives
Congress nj power except to pass laws in
respect to those subjects. This conclu-
sion seems plainly correct, and must
have been reached without much diff
Guilty. A more serious question arose,
however, under that part Of the Four
teenth Amendment which is embraced in
these words:
law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities Of citizens Of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty or property with
out due process Of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws"
Congress is expressly empowered to
enforce these provisions by appropriate
legislation, and the argument in favor Of
the c6hstitutionality of the Civil Rights
Act has been that by virtue of this power
Congress could itself pass laws 10 protect
citizens in their privileges or immunities,
whether the States attempted to inter-
fere with those privileges and immunities
or not.
But it has been plain enough ever
since the decision in the case of the
United States against Cruikshank that
the fourteenth Amendment is operative
only upon the States, and, az was de-
clared in that case, it simply furnishes
an additional guarantee against any en-.
croachment by the States upon the fun.
damental rights which belong to every
citizen a. q member Of society. Chief
Justice Waite there said:
The equality Of the rights Of citizens is
Q principle of re~publicanism. Every
republican Government is in duty bound
to protect all its citizens in the enjoy
ment of this principle, if within its
power. That duty was originally as
sumed by the States, and it still remains
there. The only obligation resting upon
the United States is to see that the
States do not deny the right. This the
amendment guarantees, but no more.
The power Of the national Government
is limited to the enforcement of thia
guarantee"
Since this decision was rendered, il
has been difficult to perceive how any
such legislation as that embodied in the
Civil Rights Act could be sustained.
The suggestion has been made that,
notwithstanding the unconstitutionality
of the Civil Rights Act, colored per
Sons may still be able to secure, under
section 2 of article Nv Of the Constitu'
ton. in other States than their own, all
the accommodations at inns, in public
conveyance, and at places Of amuse'
ment which they enjoy 1t home. That
section provides that the citizens of each
State shall be entitled to all privileges
and immunities Of citizens in the several
States. 1t is settled, however, that nc
privileges are guaranteed by it except
such as pertain strictly to citizenship,
and it il doubtful how far this limitation
would operate.
THE DIRECTORY LIABILITY.
The decision Of Chancellor Runyon in
the case Of the Mechanics National Bank