Rensselaer Republican, Volume 16, Number 7, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 October 1883 — NULL AND VOID. [ARTICLE]

NULL AND VOID.

Civil Rights Law Declared Unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court Being Operative Only in the Territories and the. District of Columbia. All the Members of the Court Except Harlan Concur in the Decision. The United States Supreme court (Mr. Justice Bradley writing the opinion, and Mr. Justice Harlan only dissenting), has pronounced the sections of the Civil Rights act according colored persons equal privileges in railway cars, hotels and theaters unconstitutional so far as the States of the Union are concerned. Cases were brought under the law to tlje highest tribunal from the States of Kansas. California. Missouri, New York and Tennessee, and had been under consideration for a year. The complainants wei-e colored men. and had been denied their rights as the law defined them in hotels, railroad-cars, restaurants, theaters, etc. The court holds that Congress had no constitutional authority to pass the above sections under either the Thirteenth or Fourteenth amendments. As to the Territories arid the District of Columbia, the. court holds the legislative power of Congress in the premises is unlimited. We print below, a summary of this im-.puigaat-decision, telegraphed from Washington by the Associated Press agent.

THE CASES. The Supreme court of the United States -faM-rendereil a decision in the five civil-rights cases submitted on printed arguments about a year ago. The titles of these cases and the States from which they came are as -follows: No. I, United States against Murray Stanley, froiit the United States Circuit court. District of Kansas; No. 2, United States against Michael Ryan, from the United States Circuit court. District of California; No. 3, United States against Samuel Nichols, from the United States Circuit court. Western District of Missouri: No. 26. Uniteil States against Samuel D. Singleton, from United States Circuit court f<w the Southern District of New Yofk/arid No. 28, Richard A. Robinson an<| wife a-ninst the Mempliis and Charleston Railroad company, from the United States Circuit court lor the District of Tennessee, These cases were all based on tlie first and second sections of the Civil Rights act of 1875. and were respectively prosecutions under that act for not admitting certain colon <i )H':>ons to equal accommodations and privileges in inns dr hotels, in railroad pars and in theaters. The defense set up in every ease was the alleged unconstitutionality of the law. The first and second sections of the ac t, wh ich —were Tht?—riarts di reet 1 v i n controversy, are as fol low s: Secticn 1. That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall lie ent tied to the lull enjoyment of the accommodations advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land and water, theaters and other places of: public amusement subject only to th- eon litions and limitations 1 established by law, an I applicable alike to every race and co’or, regard.ess of any previous ccndi.ion of servitude, The-second Section provides that any person who violates the first section shall be liable to forfeit SSOO for each offense, to be recovered in a civil action, and also to a penalty of from SSOO to SI,OOO fine, or jmprisdninent from thirty days to one year, to lie enforced by criminal prosecution. Exclusive jurisdiction is given to the District and Circuit courts of the United States in cases arising under the law. The rights and privileges claimed by and denied to colored jiersons in those cases were full and equal accommodations in hotels.in ladies’ cars on railway trains, and in the dress circle in theaters.

THE COURT’S DECISION. The court, in a long and carefully-pre-pared opinion by Justice Bradley, holds: 1. That Congress had no constitutional authority to pass the sections in question under either the Thirtec nth or Fourteenth amendments to tlie consututi-.n. 2. That the Fourteenth amendment is j rohibitory upon States that the legislauon to be adopted bv Congtess for enforcing that amendment is not direct leitisla’ion on mat era respec.ing which Statesiare prohibited from making Or enforcing ceitain laws or doing certain acts, hut is c nreetive-l .-gislauon necessary or proper tor count racking aid redressing the effect of such law cr acts; that in forbidding States, for exampl ', to deprive any p<rs‘ not liberty or property without due process of law and giving Co ng: ess power to enforce this prohibition, it was not intended to give Congri ss power to provide due process of law for the protecdon of life, liberty and property (which would embrace almost all subjects of legislation l , but to provide modes of redivss fro counteracting the operation and effect Of State laws obnoxious to the prohibit on. 3. That the Thirteenth amendment gives no rower t > Congress to pass the sections referred to. because tiiat amendment, relates oi.dy to slavery and involuntary servitude, which it abolishes, and gives Congress i ower lopisslaws lor its enforcement; that this power only.extends to the subject-matte - of the amendment Itself—namely and involuntary servitude, and the necessary incidents and consequences of those that It has nothing to do with different races or colors, but only refers to slavery, the legality of different races ami classes of being provided for in the Fourteenth amendment, which prohibits Slates from doing anything to Interfere with such that it is no infringement of the Thirteenth afnendment to refuse to any • person equal accommodations and rrivilegesat an inn of ~ place of ever it may be violative of his legal rights; that it imposes upon him no badge of slavery or involuntary servit-r de which implies some sort of subjection of one person to another, and the incapacity incident thereto, s ’cli as inability to hold property, to make contracts, to be parties in court, etc., and that if the original Civil Rights ac-.i w ich abolished these incapacities might be supported by the Thirteenth amendment it does not there oie follow that the act of 1’74 can be supnorted by it. 4. That this decision affects only the validity of the law ih states, and not in Territories of th; District of Columbia, where the legislative power of Congr-ss is un’imited. and it does not undertake to decide what Congress might er might not do under the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, the law not being drawn with any such view. 5. That it is the opinion of the court that the first and second acts of Congress of March 1, 1875. entitled "An act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal ■ights.’are unconstitutional and void, and judgment should be rendered upon the indictments accordingly.

JUSTICE HARLAN DISSENTS. At the conclusion of the reading Judge Bradley’s opitiibn, which occupied more than an hour. Justice Harlan said that under ordinary circumstances and in an ordinary ease he should hesitate to set up hiS individual opinion in opposition 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 believed they had accomplished by»means of this legislation, he must express his dissent from the opinion of the court. He had not time Since bearing that opinion to prepare a statement of the grounds of his dissent, but he \should prepare and tile one as soon as possible, and In the meantime he desired to put upon,rec ord this expression of his individual judg nient. ■ \ ■ ■ ■ PUBLIC_FEELING. [Washington Telegram to Chicago Herald.] The decision is the subject of universal oomment here, and it is safe to say that no other decision of the Court since the famous )red Scott decision by Chief Justice Taney tas created so much excitement and dissuasion. Washington Telegram to Chicago Inter Ocean.] The decision of the Supreme court in the avil Rights cases made something of a sensaion here. There are several suite pending In his district, and the reference made to these

in Bradley's opinion causes some consternation among hotel and restaurant men, who imagine it will operate disastrously to them. The strong intimation that the law of Congress is operative here, while not deciding the questions pending as to the district, is construed as authoritative. It also destroys the hope of the clique which is agitating the question of suffrage, and opens the npy question as to a similar form of Government for Utah. Both of these propositionshave had able legal advocates and the decision of to-day is regarded as affording the a secure legal footing for the future. Gen. Ben Harrison, of Indiana, says he was not much surprised at the decisiou.of the Supreme court, and believed it good law. VIEWS OF COLORED LEADERS. FRED DOUGLAS. Fred Douglas, when asked what he thought of the decision, said: “It is disheartening, and I regard it as a.step backward. The result will be mischievous. At the close of the war, and in view of the services rendered by , colored men, there was a disposition on the part of the country to concede to them complete citizenship and equal civil rights in the i*se of all public conveyances and institutions. I regard thia decision as'apart of the general reaction naturally following increased frieridship between the North and South, which comes of the dying out of the old controversy on the subject of slavery. Nearly all the concessions the colored people have received have been the result of the antagonism of the two sections. I do not despair, however, of the ultimate return of a liberal spirit toward thb colored people. I think the decision confounds social with Civil rights. Social equality does not result from riding on the same car with a man or buying goods at the same store. The decision places the American people far in the rear of the civilized nations of Europe. The decision is contrary to the Declaration of independence, the spirit ®f Christianity, the spirit of the age, and in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments.,lt tends to weaken the spirit of patriotism which the nation mayneed in some hour of}M>ril." ■ ■ i -Of.; LANGSTON. Prof. John M. Langston, ’Minister to Hayti, the man who drew, at the request of Charles Sumner, the act of which the two sections have been declared unconstitutional, says: “I am surprised and deeply disappointed at the decision, but, in fact, the Civil Rights act gave us no rights which we did not already have under the Fourteenth amendment. We oriwlthout the act equal rights in this country, and the courts of the States should give them to us. if they do not, then Congress has power under the amendments to ’legislate so that they will be eoinjielled to do so. The result." therefor, will be simply to bring tlie matter liefore Congress agaiii." imchard t. greener. Richard T. Greener, the well-known colored lawyer, speaking of the decision, said: “It ■is the most startling decision since theinfaSous dictum of Chief Justice Taney. I myself would much rather be deprived of my political •rights than my social. ones. I can live without suffrage, I ean exist without office, but I want to have the privilege of traveling from New York to California without 1 t ar of I>eing put off a car or denied lixid and shelter because 1 have a trace of negro blood 'in my veins. The civilj-ightsgranted by that law are not only constitutional, but in my judgment antedate the constitution."

PRESS COMMENT. [From the New York Times, Republican.] In the temper which the people have now reached in dealing with questions that formerly had a sectional significance and that pertain to the. relations of the races in this country, it seems as though nothing were necessary but a careful rending of the Fourteenth amendment to show that it did not suthorize such legislation as the. Civil Rights act. and yet Judge Harlan is to file a dissenting opinion which may present consideration* that do not occur to thy ordinary mind. The prohibition of the amendment is specially directed against the making and enforcing of laws by States which shall abridge the — privileges and immunities of— citizens. Assuming that these concede the right to equal accommodations in public conveyances and places of entertainment, it does not appear in any of these cases that the State has in its legislation for the enforcement of laws made the discriminations complained of. The decision is not likely to have any considerable practical effect, for the reason that the act of 1875 has never been enforced. Spasmodic efforts have been made to give it effect, and occasional contests have been made in the courts, but the general practice of railroads, hotels, and theaters has remained unchanged, and has depended mainly on the prevailing sentiment of the communities in which they are located. The question of absolute right is not affected by the constitutional amendment or the decision of the Supreme court. There is a good deal of unjust prejudice against negroes, and. they should be treated on their merits a» individuals precisely as other citizens are treated in like circumstances. But it is doubtful if social privileges can be succesfully dealt with by legislation of any kind. At any rate, it is i now certain that they are beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Congress. If anything can be done for their benefit it must be through State legislation. They are guaranteed against adverse and discriminating action by the States, and favorable action can only be -secured through State authority. This remands the whole matter to the field in which it rightly belongs and in wffiich alone it can be effectually dealt with. [From the New "York World, Democratic.! The decision of the Supreme court of the United States declaring the Civil Rights law unconstitutional 'will Create much excitement among the negro population. The court does not find in the Thirteenth or Fourteenth amendments* any authority for TeglslaUon“fequiring, under penalties, that equal privileges tn hotel* rail ways and the*-,; ters to colored and white citizens alike. The opinion, singularly enough, is written by Justice Bradley, of New Jersey, while the only dissenting voice is that of Justice Harlan, of Kentucky. The latter Judge records the notice of his non-coneurretice, and promises to file his opinion sustaining the law at a future time. Judge’ Bradley was President Grant's appointment and Judge- Harbin was appointed j>y Hayes. ' The blunders by which the object of equal social rights has thus been defeated are those of the Republicans. The Democrats have no responsibility in the matter. If our colored fellow-citizens act wisely they will accept the result with silence and will strive by selfimprovement and good citizenship to win the respect and consideration to which every honest man is entitled, no matter what may be t>e color Of his skin. Thariis their su rest way to equal rights and to the sympathy of all whose friendship is worth having. [From New York Truth (Independent).] The United States Supreme court has put a quietus on the fanatical legislation in Congress of a few years ago by which Federal laws provided penalties against innkeepers, railway agents, theater or restaurant managers who did not give privileges to colored people equal to those grven white people. The court almost unanimously hold that only the Slates can regulate such matters, and that the Federal statuies and penalties in question are This State has a law for such equal privileges, but it is regarded as a dead letter, because refusals to colored people can be put tlpon assailable grounds by the use of a little tact and dis-