Arizona weekly citizen., 1883-10-20
The Ciyu RiChtS Aef.


 The United States Supreme Court has
 rendered a very important decision. It
 is in the five cases known as the ''civIl
 rights cases" The first and second sec | tions of the act, which were the facts directly in controversy are as follows:
 Section l. That all persons within the | jurisdiction of the United States shall
 be entitled to full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theatres and other places of amusement, subject only to the conditions and Limitations
 established by law, and applicable alike to every race and color, regardless or any previous condition or servltude.
 Section provides, that any person
 who violates the first section shall be liable to forfeit $500 for each offence, to be recovered in a civil action, and also to a penalty of $500 to 1000 and be sub | iect to fine or imprisonment, from thirty days to one year, to be enforced by criminal prosecution. Exclusive !uris- diction is given to the Circuit and Dis trict Courts of the United States ln cases arising under the law. The rights and privileges claimed by and denied to colored persons in these cases, were fall and equal accommodations Tn hotels, in ladies cars on railway trans, and ln the dress circle Tn theaters.
 The court in a long and carefully pre- pared opinion by Justice Bradley holds; First, that Congress had no constitution al authority to pass the sections m ques- tion under either the thirteenth or four teenth amendments which are prohibit ory upon states only and that the legIs- lation authorized to be adopted by Con- gress for enforcing the amendments IS not direct legislation on matters re- spectlng which the states are prohibited from making or enforcing the acts, but is corrective legislation necessary or proper for couuteracting and redresslug the effect of such or acts. Second, that in forbidding the states, as for example, to deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law and giving Congress power to enforce such prohibition it was not intended to give Congress power to provide due process of law for the protection of life, liberty and property (which would embrace almost all subjects of legislatiOnG but to provide a mode of redress for cOun- teracting Its operation, and enaetlng state laws obnoxious to such prohibit ton. Third, that the thirteenth amend ment gives no power to Congress to pass the sections referred to, because that amendment relates only to slavery and involuntary servitude, which It abolished, and gives Congress power to pass laws for its enforcement; that this power only extends to the subject mat ter of the amendment itself, namely, slavery and involuntary servitude, and the necessary incidents and consequent ces of those conditions; that 1t has nothing to do with different races or colors, but only refers to slavery, the legal equality of different races and and classes of citizens being provided for in the fourteenth amendment which prohibits the states from doing anything to interfere with such equal ity; that it is no infringement of the the thirteenth amendment to refuse tO any person equal accommodations, and privileges ln inns and places of pubhc entertainment, however 1t may be @ violation of his rights; that 1t imposes upon him no badge of slavery or in- voluntary servitude, which imply some sort of subiectlOn of one person to another, and the capacity incident thereto, such as inability to hold prop erty, to make contracts, to be parties in court, etc, and that if the original civil rights act which abolished these in- capacities might be supported by the thirteenth amendment, it does not therefore follow that the act of 1874 cant be supported by it. Fourth, that this decision affects only the validity of the law in the States, and not in the Terri l tories or District of Columbia, where the legislative power of Congress Is un- limited, and does undertake to decide | what Congress might or might not do l under the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the 1 several States, the law not being drawn | with any such view. Fifth, that it ls l the opinion of the court that the first l and second acts of Congress of March l lst, 1875, entitled An act to protect all l citizens in their civil and legal rights l are unconstitutional and void, and | judgment should be rendered upon the | accordingly.
 At the conclusion of the reading of I Judge Bradley's opinion, which Occu- l ped more than an hour, Justice Harlan | sad that under ordinary circumstances | and in ordinary cases he should hesitate l to set up his individual opinion in oppo- | sitIon to his eight colleagues; but in | view Of what he thought the people of | this country wished to accomplish, what | they tried to accomplish, and what they l believed they had accomplished by thIs | he must express his dissent 1 from the opinion of the court. He had | not had time since hearing that opinion to prepare a statement of the grounds | of his dissent, but he should prepare to file one as soon as possible, and m tbe desired to put upon record this expression of hIs individual judg-