Court Opinion

ID: 9416895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:57:55.421452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:33.940355
License: Public Domain

Miv Justice SWAYNE,
dissenting:
• I concur in the dissent in these cases and in the views expressed by my brethren, Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Bradley.' I desire, however, to submit a few additional remarks.
The first eleven amendments to the Constitution were intended to be checks and limitations upon the government which that instrument called into existence. They had their origin in a spirit of jealousy on the part-of the States, which existed when the Constitution was adopted. The first ten were proposed in 1789 by the first Congress at its first session after the organization of the government. The eleventh was proposed in 1794, and the twelfth in 1803. The one last mentioned regulates the mode of electing the .President aud Vice-President. It neither increased nor diminished the power of the General Government, aud may be said in that respect to occupy neutral ground. No further amendrpents were made until 1865, a period of -more than sixty .years. The thirteenth amendment was proposed by Congress on the 1st of February, 1865, the fourteenth oil *125the 16th of June, 1866, and the-fifteenth on the 27th of' February, 1869. These amendments are a. new departure, and mark an important epoch in the constitutional history of the country. They trench directly upon the power of the States, and deeply affect those bodies. They are,'in this respect, at the opposite pole from the first eleven.*
Fairly construed these amendments may be said to rise to the dignity of a new Magna Charta. The thirteenth blotted out slavery and forbade forever its restoration. It struck the .fetters from four- millions of human beings and raised them at once to the sphere of freemen. This was an act of grace and justice performed by the Nation. Before the war it could have been done only by the States where the institution existed, acting severally and separately from each other. ' The power then rested wholly with them. In that way, apparently, such a result could never have occurred. The power of Congress did not extend to the subject, except in the Territories.
The fourteenth amendment consists of five sections. The first is as follows: “All persons born or naturalized within the United' States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they, reside. No State sliall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall auy State deprive any person of life; liberty, ■or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The fifth section declares-that Congress shall have power to enforce the provisions of this amendment by appropriate legislation.
The fifteenth amendment declares that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Until this amendment was adopted the sub*126ject to which it relates was wholly within the jurisdiction of the States. The General Government was excluded from participation.
The first section of the-fourteenth amendment is alone involved in the consideration of these cases. No searching analysis is necessary to eliminate its meaning. Its language is intelligible and direct. Nothing can be more transparent. .Every word employed has an established significa-' tion. There is no room for construction.1 There is nothing to construe. Elaboration may obscure, but cannot make clearer, the intent and purpose sought to be carried out.
(1.) Citizens of the States and of the United States are defined.
(2.) It is declared that no State shall, by law, abridge the ■privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,
(3.)’ That no State shall deprive any person, whether a citizen or not, of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A citizen of a State is ipsa fado a citizen óf the United States. No one can be the former without being also the latter; but the latter, by losing his' residence in one State without acquiring it in another, although he continues to be the latter, ceases for the time to be the former. “ The privileges and-immunities ” of a citizen of the United States'include, among other things, the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property, and also the rights which pertain to him by reason of his membership of the Nation. ' The citizen of a State has the same fundamental rights as a citizen of the United States, and also certain others, local in their character, arising from his relation to the State, and in addition, those which belong to the citizen of the United States, he being in that relation also. There may thus be a double citizenship, each having some rights peculiar to itself. It is only over those which belong to the citizen of the United States that the category here in question throws the shield of its protection. All those which belong to the citizen of a State, except as to bills of attainder, ex post fado *127laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts,* †are left to the guardianship of the bills of rights, constitutions, and laws of the Statés respectively. Those fights may all be enjoyed in every State by the citizens of every other State by virtue of clause 2, section 4, article 1, of the Constitution of the United States as it was originally framed. This section does not in anywise affect them; such was not its purpose.
In the next category, obviously ex industriñ, to prevent, as far as may be, the possibility of misinterpretation, either as to persons or things, the phrases “citizens of the United States” and “privileges and immunities” are dropped, ‘and more simple and comprehensive terms are substituted. The substitutes are “any persou,” aud “life,” “liberty,” aud “ property,” and “ the-equal protection of the laws.” Life, liberty, and property are forbidden to be taken “ without due process of law,”- and “ equal protection of the laws” is guaranteed to all. Life is the gift of G-od, and the right to preserve it is the most-sacred of the rights of man. Liberty is freedom from- all restraints but such as are justly imposed by law. Beyond that line lies the domain of usurpation and tyranny. Property is everything which has an exchangeable value, and the right of property includes the power to dispose of it according to the will of the owner. Labor is property, and as such merits protection. The right to make it available is next in importance to the rights of life and liberty.. It lies to a large extent at the foundation of most other forms of property, and of all solid individual and national prosperity. “Due process of. law” is the application of the law as it exists in the fair and regular course of administrative procedure! “ The equal protection of tile laws” places all upon a footing of legal equality and gives the same protection to all for the preservation of life, liberty, and property, and the pursuit of happiness.†
*128It is admitted that the plaintiffs in error are citizens of the United States, and persons within the jurisdiction of Louisiana. The cases before us, therefore, present but two questions.
(1.) Does the act of the legislature creating the monopoly in question abridge the privileges and immunities of the plaintiffs in error as citizens of the United States?
(2.) Does-it deprive them of liberty'or property without due process of law, or deny them the equal protection of the laws of the State, they being persons “ within its jurisdiction ?”
Both these inquiries I remit for their answer as to the facts to the opinions of my brethren, Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Bradley. They are full and conclusive upon the subject. A more flagrant and indefensible invasion of the rights of many for the benefit of a few has not occurred in the legislative history of the country. The response to both inquiries should be in the affirmative. In my opinion the case.s, as presented in the record, are clearly within the letter and meaning of both the negative categories'of the sixth section. The judgments before us should, therefore, be reversed.
These amendments are all consequences of the late civil war. The prejudices and apprehension as to the central government which prevailed when the Constitution was adopted were dispelled by the light of experience. The public mind became satisfied that there was less danger of tyranny in the head than of anarchy and tyranny in the members. The provisions of this section are all eminently conservative in their character. They are a bulwark of defence, and can never be made an engine of oppression. The language employed is unqualified in its scope. There is no exception in its terms, and there can be properly none in their application. By the language “ citizens of the United States” was meant all such citizens; and by “ any person” *129was meant all persons within the jurisdiction of the State. No distinction is intimated on account of race or color. This court has no authority to interpolate a limitation that is neither expressed nor implied. Our duty is to execute the law, not to make it. The protection provided was not intended to be confined to those of any particular race or class, but to embrace equally all races, classes, and conditions of men. It is objected that the power conferred is novel and large. The answer is that the novelty was known and the measure deliberately adopted. The power is beneficent.in its nature, and cannot be abused. It is such as should exist in every well-ordered system of polity. Where could it be more appropriately lodged than in the hands to which it is confided ? It is necessary to enable the government of the nation to secure to every one within its jurisdiction the rights and privileges enumerated, which, according to'the plainest considerations of reason and justice and the fundamental principles of the social compact, all are entitled to enjoy. Without such authority any government claiming to be national is glaringly defective. The construction adopted by the majority of my brethren is, in my judgment,mauch too narrow. It defeats, by a limitation not anticipated, the intent of those by whom the instrument was,framed and of those by whom it was adopted. To the extent of that limitation it turns, as it were, what was meant for bread into a stone. By the Constitution, as it stood before the war, ample protection was given against oppression by the Union, but little was given against wrong and oppression by the States. That.want was intended to be supplied by this amendment Against the former this court has been called upon more than once to interpose. Authority of the same amplitude was intended to be conferred as to the latter. But this arm of our jurisdiction is, in these cases, stricken down by the judgment just given. Nowhere, than in this court, ought the will of the nation, as thus expressed, to be more liberally construed or more cordially executed. This determination of the raaj'ority seems to me-to lie far in the other direction.
*130• I earnestly hope that the consequences to follow may prove less serious and far-reaching than the, minority fear they will be.

 Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters, 243; Livingston v. Moore, Ib. 551; Pox v. Ohio, 5 Howard, 429; Smith v. Maryland, 18 Id. 71; Pervear v. Commonwealth, 5 Wallace, 476; Twitchell v Commonwealth, 7 Id. 321.

 Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 10.

 Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Washington, 380; Lemmon v. The People, 26 Barbour, 274, and 20 New York, 626; Conner v. Elliott, 18 Howard, 593; Murray v. McCarty, 2 Mumford, 399; Campbell v. Morris, 3 Harris & *128McHenry, 554; Towles’s Case, 5 Leigh, 748; State v. Medbury, 3 Rhode Island, 142; 1 Tucker’s Blackstone, 145; 1 Cooley’s Blackstone, 125, 128.