The broad ax., 1908-10-24

partments.
This Mississippi act was set out In
fun in this decision including sections
one and two referred to above. the
court did not pass upon two, holding
the indictment did not raise the ques-
ton.
It Is readily seen that the railroad
was doing an interstate business and
section two would under the interstate
commerce section Of the constitution.
Hall VS.. de Cuier. IS, U. s. 4s5.
The Louisiana Act Of Feb. %, 1869
provided that common carriers should
not discriminate against any person
on public conveyances etc, and pro
vided for damages for so doing.
The Governor Allen" a steamboat
was licensed by U. s. and plying as q
regular packet for transportation OF
freight and passengers between New
Orleans, La, and Vicksburg, Miss, and
doing interstate business.
Josephene de Cuier, a Colored per-
son took passage from New Orleans to
Hermitage, both in La The q. S.
Supreme Court held that this act so
far as affected interstate commerce
was unconstitutional.
The District Court Of the Parish
held statute was operative, and was
not regulation OF commerce among
states, and was not void, judgement
was for $1,000, and the Supreme Court
of La, sustained the District Court.
The Supreme Court Of the United
States reversed and remanded. This
act prohibits discrimination. Compare
this decision with L. N. o. & T. R. W.
Co., 1913 U. s. above, where the act
discrimination, and in both
cases the common carriers were do
ing an interstate business.
RIGHT or SUFFRAGE.
In the U. S. VS.. Reese, go U. S. PA,
the court holds, The fifteenth amend
ment does not confer the right or
suffrage upon anyone. The right to
vote in the states comes from the
states. The amendment prevents the
states or the United States from Civ
ing preference in this particular to
one, citizen Of the U. S. over another |
on account Of race or previous condi-
lion of servitude" Congress has not
yet provided by appropriate legisla-
ton for the punishment of said Of
ense"
This was in March 1876 and It may
be noted that congress has not until |
this day done so, although the Consti- |
tuition Of the U. s., Amendment IA,
Art. II, provides that representation
shall be reduced.
In the matter Of Jasper Marlborough
ITO U. 8. 651, holds that the fifteenth
Amendment to the Constitution does
confer on the Negro the
light 10 vote and congress has the
power to protect and enforce that
light This decision was In 1884. Con-
yress has not Jet acted to date.
In q. s. vs.. Cruikshank, 90 U. 8. 342,
he court holds person may be at the
anne time a citizen Of state, but his
lights Of citizenship under one Of these
viii be different from
hose he has under the other.
Citizens are members Of the politf-
al community to which they belong,
hey are subject to two governments
me state and the other national
A cursory view win show that the
,iyf Rights Act was declared uncon-
titutioual and void; the separate com
laws have been held to be
Constitutional as applied TO states; 4
'erson Is subject to laws Of state as
Tell as Federal government; Congress
as power and shall reduce reDresen-
alton. Courts generally follow their
primer decisions, and 1t appears that
be law has BEEN defined. It win be
Oted that interstate passengers are
OF subject to separate coach laws;
Thy the Supreme Court has not amrm-
lively held, Congress has passed laws II
or interstate Commerce /
commission, may Be subjects Of dis. 1
ussion. It appears that the states
an regulate their citizenship as long !,
s these regulations do not come with II
4 the purView OF the amendment. race. ID
DIOR or previous condition Of serTi-
ude. As to what differences It win
laks a. to whom are appointed to the
eneh OF the Supreme Court Of the
United States does not sumciently
ppear, except the vacation on the
ench By Justice Harlan from Ken
uelU.
All the other Justices are from
Il