The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-11-01
CIVIL RIGHTS.
The Main Points on Which the De.
cisiOn was Rendered.


in the decision of the supreme court
in the civil rights cases. After quot
ing the first two sections of the act
Justice Bradley, who delivered the
opinions, says: HAS Congress the
constitutional power to make such a
law? OF course no one will contend
that power to pass. 1t was
contained in the constitution before
the adoption of the last three amend
ments. The power is sought first in the
fourteenth amendment, first section,
which is the one relied on. After de-
claring who shall be citizens of the
United States, as Prohibitory in its
character and prohibitory upon states,
it is state action of particular
character that is prohibited. Indiyid-
ual invasion and individual rights is
not the subject matter Of the amend
ment. 1t has deeper and broader
scope. 1t nullifes and makes void all
state legislation and state action of
every kind, which impairs the privi-
leges of citizens or which Injuries
them in life, liberty or prosperity,
without due process of law, or which
denies to any of them equal protec-
ton under the law. 1t not only does
this, but in order that the nations
will, thus declared, may not be mere
brutum fulemer, the last section of
the amendment invests congress with
power to enforce it Dy appropriate
Legislation. To enforce what? To
adopt appropriate legislation for coun-
teracting any prohibited effects of
state laws and state acts, aud thus to
render them effectually void, innocu-
Gus. This is the legislative power
conferred upon congress and this is
the whole of it. 1t does not invest
congress with power to legislate upon
subjects which are within the domain
of state legislation, but to provide a
mode and relief against state 1egisla-
ton or state action of the kind re-
ferred to, until some state law had
been passed or some state
action, through it's officers or agents,
been taken adverse to the rights of
citizens thought to be protected by
the fourteenth amendment. No leg
islation of the United States under
said amendment, nor any proceeding
under such legislation can be called
into activity for prohibitory amend
OutbIO laws d1u dCUS
done under state authority. The in
spection law here in question shows
that it applies equally to cases arising
in states which have just
laws. respecting the personal
rights of citizens and whose
authorities are ever ready to enforce
such laws as to those which arise in
the states that may have violated the
prohibition amendment. In other
words, it steps into the domain of
local Jurisprudence and lays down
rules for the conduct of individuals
in society toward each other, without
in any manner to any sup
posed action of the stete or its au-
thorities. Ii this legislation is appro-
pirate for enforcing prohibltory
amendments it is difficult to see wnere
t is to stop. May not congress with
equal show of authority enact a
code of laws for the enforcement and
of all rights of life, liber-
ty and prosperity. 1t is not supposa-
bic that states may deprive persons of
life, liberty and prosperity without
lue process of law, (and the amend
ment itself does suppose this), why
should not congress proceed at once
to prescribe due process of law for
The protection of every one of these
rights, in every possible
case, as we'll as to prescribe an equal
privilege in public conveyanCes and
5heatres? Judge Bradley refers
% the civil rights bill of
April 4, 1866, and shows that it is
clearly corrective in it's character, in
ended to counterfeit redress against
state laws, and proceedings and GUS
,oms having forced laws which sane
ion the wrongful acts specified. "In
his connection" he adds, 'it is proper
% state that civil rights, such as guar
snteed by the constitution against
state aggression, cannot be impaired
~ the wrongful acts of individuals,
unsupported by state authority, in the
shape of laws and customs. On judi
,ial or executive proceedings, a
act of an individual, sup
ported 10y any such authority, is sim
ply private wrong, or crime. That
Individually it is an invasion OF the
lights of the injured party. 1t
s true whether they effect his
person or property or reputation,
lut if not sanctioned i'll some way by
he state, or not done under its au-
,hority, his rights remain in full force
md may presumably be indicated by
,esort to the laws of the state. An
Individual cannot be deprived of his
light to vote, to hold property, to buy
md sell, to sue in the courts, or to be
/. witness or a juror. He may, by
torce or fraud, be interfered with in
,he exercise of his right. In case
De commit assault against a person,
1r commit murder or use ruffian ViO-
ence at the polls or SANDER the good
lame of fellow citizens, but unless
protection in these wrongful acts by
state authority, he cannot destroy or
njure the right; he will only render
himself amenable to punishment and
therefore, to the state
where the wrong act was committed.
If the principle interpretations we
nave laid down are correct, as we
claim them to be, is ques-
ton that cannot be sustained
by any grant OF legislative
power made to congress by the amend
ment, but the power of congress to
adopt direct and primary, as distin-
guished from corrective legislation
on the subject in hand. is sought. In
the second place, from the thirteenth
which abolishes slavery
and gives congress the power to en-
force the amendments by appropriate
legislation. This amendment, as well
as the fourteenth, is undoubtedly self
executing, without any auxiliary leg
islation, so far as the term
is applicable to any exist
ing state. Circumstances, by
it's own unaided -orco, abolished
slavery and established universal
freedom, but legislation may be
proper TO meet all serious cases of
to be affected by it, and
prescribe a proper mode of redress for
its violation in letter or spirit, and
such legislation may be proper and
direct in its character. The amend
ment is not a mere prohibition of
laws establishing or abol.shing
slavery, but an absolute declaration
that slavery shall not exist in any
part of the United States. Now, con-
ceding, for tue sake of argument, that
admission into public conveyance o.
to a place of public amusement on
equal terms with all other citizens is
the right of every man or all classes
of men; is it any more than one of
those rights which the states, by the
fourteenth amendment, are forbidden
to deny to any person, and is the con-
stitution violated until the denial of
right has some state sanction or au-
thority? Can the act of the mere
Individual owner of an inn
or public conveyance, or place of
amusement, refusing accommodation,
be justly said to be imposing any