The broad ax., 1908-10-17
4HE unFfED STATES eUPREAl1
COURT AND the CIVIL
MahTs CASES.

llo4cLuoeo NON pA8o -
e above constituted. handed down It's
decision through Mr.. Justice Bradley
declaring the federal statute above
quoted Unconstitutional and therefore
void. An Of the justices eoncurTed
IN this decision OF the court except
Mr.. Justice Harlan. who was the only
real southsrnsr on the bench
TAs opinion Of the court covers %
pages Of the one hundred and ninth q.
| s. report ana the dissenting opinion
Of ar. Justice Harlan covers 80 pages.
His opinion Is trong. logical. convinc-
ing and should kave been the opinion
Of the court as It completely under
mines the opinion the court handed
down with faultless reasoning. It fol
lows that all the Northern members
OF the court must have yielded to
prejudicial sentiment In making its
finding against the Colored people In
volYed In the civil rights cases.
Mr.. Justice Harlan's opinion is our
opinion ana We give a few of its sa-
lent expressions, as follows:
What Justice Harlan said.
eThe opinion In these cases pro-
ceeds, It seems to me. upon grounds
entirely too narrow and artificial
cannot resist the conclusion that the
substance and spirit Of the recent
amendments Of the constitution have
been sacrificed by subtle and inge-
Nous verbal criticism. 1t is not the
words Of the law but the internal
sense of 1t that makes the law; the
letter OF the law is the body; THE
SENSE AND REASON OF THE LAW
IS THE SOUL Constitutional provf-
sions, adopted in the interest of secur-
ing, through national legislation, II
need be, rights inhering in state Of
freedom. and belonging to American
citizenship, have been so construed
as to defeat the ends the people de-
sired to accomplish. which they at
tempted to accomplish, and which they
supposed they had accomplished by
changes in their fundamental law. BY
this do not mean that the determine
ton Of these cases should have been
materially controlled by considera-
tons OF mere expediency or policy.
mean only, in this form, to express
an earnest conviction that the court
has departed from the familiar rule
requiring, in the Interpretation Of
constitutional provisions. that full
erect be given to the'intent with
which were adopted"
~The purpose Of the first section OF
the act Of congress Of March 1. 1876.
was to prevent race discrimination in
respect of the accommodations and IA
cilities of inns, public eonveyanees,
and places of amusement. It does not
assume to define the general condi-
tons and limitations under which
inns, public conveyances and places
of public amusement may be conduct
ed, but only declares that such condi-
tons and limitations, whatever they
may be, SHALL NOT BE APPLIED
so AS TO WORK A DISCRBIINA-
lToN SOLELY BECAUSE OF RACE,
COLOR OR PREVIOUS CONDITION
or sERyITUDE." The right, for in
stance, Of a Colored citizen to use the
accommodation of a rnbi.e highway
Eupon the same terms as are permitted
to white citizens. is no more social
right than his right, under the Law, to
use the public streets OF city or a
town, or a turnpike road, or public
market, or a postofHce. or his right to
sit In q public building with others
Of whatever race. for the purpose of
hearing the political questions of the
day discussed. Scarcely day passes
without our seeing in this court room
citizens of the white and black races
sitting side by side watching the pro-
Eess Of our business. 1T WOULD
NEVER OCCUR TO ANYONE THAT
THE PRESENCE OF A coLoRED
fCTTIZEN IN A COURT HOUSE OR
iCoURT ROOM WAS AN INVASION
loF THE SOCIAL RIGHTS OF WHITE
PERSONS WHO NAY FREQUENT
SUCH PLACES. And yet, such sug-
lgestion would be quite as sound In
law-T say it with all respect-as is
the suggestion that the claim Of a
cOlored citizen to use, upon the same
terms as is permitted to white eiti-
zsns. the accommodations gof public
highways. or public inns. or places Of
public amusements, established under
the license o I the Jaw. Is an Invasion
Of the sceias rights Of the white race