Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

anywhere within the limits of the land., race or color, and without illegal interferWhether this was or was not the wiser way ence or by violent means. to deal with the great problem is not a matter for the courts to consider. It is for us to accept the decision, which declined to constitute them wards of the nation or leave them in a condition of alienage where they would be subject to the jurisdiction of Congress, but gave them citizenship, doubtless believing that thereby in the long run their best interests would be subserved, they taking their chances with other citizens in the states where they should make their homes.

For these reasons we think that the United States court had no jurisdiction of the wrong charged in the indictment. The judgments are reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to sustain the demurrer to the indictment.

The indictment was based primarily upon $ 5508 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3712), which provides: "§ 5508. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or if two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured, they shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, and imprisoned not more than ten years, and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to any office or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the Constitution or laws of the United

Mr. Justice Brown concurs in the judg- States."

ments.

Other sections of the statutes relating to civil rights, and referred to in the discusMr. Justice Harlan (with whom concurs sion at the bar, although not, perhaps, vital Mr. Justice Day), dissenting:

The plaintiffs in error were indicted with eleven others in the district court of the United States, eastern district of Arkansas, for the crime of having knowingly, wilfully, and unlawfully conspired to oppress, threaten, and intimidate Berry Winn, Dave Hinton, Percy Legg, Joe Mardis, Joe McGill, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, and George Shelton, persons of African descent and citizens of the United States and of Arkansas, in the free exercise and enjoyment of the right and privilege-alleged to be secured to them respectively by the Constitution and laws of the United States-of disposing of their labor and services by contract and of performing the terms of such contract without discrimination against them because of their

The indictment charged that "the said Berry Winn, Dave Hinton, Percy Legg, Joe Mardis, Joe McGill, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, and George Shelton, being then and there persons of African descent, and citizens of the United States and of the state of Arkansas, had then and there made and entered into contracts and agreements with James A. Davis and James S. Hodges, persons then and there doing business under the name of Davis & Hodges, as copartners carrying on the business of manufacturers of lumber at White Hall, in said county, the said contracts being for the employment by said firm of the said Berry Winn, Dave Hinton, Percy Legg, Joe Mardis, Joe McGill, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, and George Shelton, as laborers and workmen in and about their said manufacturing establishment, by which contracts the said Berry Winn, Dave Hinton, Percy Legg, Joe Mardis, Joe McGill, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, and George Shelton

[ocr errors]

to the decision of the present case, are as follows: "§ 1977 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1259). All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every state and territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, and be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. § 1978. All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. § 1979. Every person who, were, on their part, to perform labor and services at said manufactory, and were to receive, on the other hand, for their labor and services, compensation, the same being a right and privilege conferred upon them by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the laws passed in pursuance thereof, and being a right similar to that enjoyed in said state by the white citizens thereof; and while the said Berry Winn, Dave Hinton, Percy Legg, Joe Mardis, Joe McGill, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, and George Shelton were in the enjoyment of said right and privilege the said defendants did knowingly, wilfully, and unlawfully conspire as aforesaid to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate them in the free exercise and enjoyment of said right and privilege, and because of their having so exercised the same, and because they were citizens of African descent, enjoying said right, by then and there notifying the said

under color of any statute, ordinance, regu-, for compensation, service and labor in and lation, custom, or usage of any state or ter- about the manufacturing business in that ritory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, state of a private individual; any citizen of the United States or other That those persons, in execution of their person within the jurisdiction thereof to the contract, entered upon and were actually deprivation of any rights, privileges, or im- engaged in performing the work they agreed munities secured by the Constitution and to do, when the defendants-the present laws, shall be liable to the party injured in plaintiffs in error-knowingly and wilfully an action at law, suit in equity, or other conspired to injure, oppress, threaten, and proper proceeding for redress." "§ 5510 (U. intimidate such laborers, solely because of S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3713). Every person their having made that contract, and bewho, under color of any law, statute, ordi- cause of their race and color, in the free exnance, regulation, or custom, subjects, or ercise of their right to dispose of their labor, causes to be subjected, any inhabitant of and prevent them from carrying out their any state or territory to the deprivation of contract to render such service and labor; any rights, privileges, or immunities, secured That, in the prosecution of such conspiror protected by the Constitution and laws acy, the defendants, by violent means, comof the United States, or to different punish-pelled those laborers, simply, "because they ments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not more than one year, or by both."

were colored men and citizens of African descent," to quit their work and abandon the place at which they were performing labor in execution of their contract; and

That, in consequence of those acts of the defendant conspirators, the laborers referred to were hindered and prevented, solely because of their race and color, from enjoying the right by contract to dispose of their labor upon such terms and to such persons as to them seemed best.

A demurrer to the indictment was overruled, and the defendants having pleaded not guilty, they were tried before a jury, and some of them-the present plaintiffs in error-were convicted of the crime charged, were each fined $100, and ordered to be im-ers thus to dispose of their labor secured to prisoned for one year and a day. A motion for new trial having been denied, they have brought the case to this court.

In our consideration of the questions now raised it must be taken, upon this record, as conclusively established by the verdict and judgment,—

That certain persons-the said Berry Winn and others above named with himcitizens of the United States, and of Arkansas, and of African descent, entered into a contract whereby they agreed to perform, Berry Winn, Dave Hinton, Percy Legg, Joe Mardis, Joe McGill, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, and George Shelton that they must abandon said contracts and their said work at said mill, and cease to perform any further labor thereat, or receive any further compensation for said labor, and by threatening, in case they did not so abandon said work, to injure them, and by thereafter then and there wilfully and unlawfully marching and moving in a body to and against the places of business of the said firm while the said Berry Winn, Dave Hinton, Percy Legg, Joe Mardis, Joe McGill, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, and George Shelton were engaged thereat, and while they were in the performance of said contracts thereon, the said defendants being then and there armed with deadly weapons, threatening and intimidating the said workmen there employed, with the purpose of compelling them, by violence and

Was the right or privilege of these labor

them "by the Constitution or laws of the United States ?" If so, then this case is within the very letter of § 5508 of the Revised Statutes, and the judgment should be affirmed if that section be not unconstitutional.

But I need not stop to discuss the constitutionality of § 5508. It is no longer open to question, in this court, that Congress may, by appropriate legislation, protect any right or privilege arising from, created or secured by, or dependent upon, the Constitu| threats and otherwise, to remove from said place of business, to stop said work, and to cease the enjoyment of said right and privilege, and by then and there wilfully, delibcrately, and unlawfully compelling said Berry Winn, Dave Hinton, Percy Legg, Joe Mardis, Joe McGill, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, and George Shelton to quit said work and abandon said place and cease the free enjoyment of all advantages under said contracts, the same being so done by said defendants and each of them for the purpose of driving the said Berry Winn, Dave Hinton, Percy Legg, Joe Mardis, Joe McGill, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, and George Shelton from said place of business and from their labor because they were colored men and citizens of African descent, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States."

this court has said: 'In the exercise of this general power of legislation, Congress may use any means appearing to it most eligible and appropriate, which are adapted to the end to be accomplished, and are consistent with the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.' Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263, 283, 36 L. ed. 429, 435, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617, 622."

tion or laws of the United States. That is | fender shall suffer such punishment as is what that section does. It purports to do attached to such felony or misdemeanor by nothing more. In Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 the laws of the state in which the offense is U. S. 651, 28 L. ed. 274, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152, committed. No question has been made— it was distinctly adjudged that § 5508 was a indeed, none could successfully be madevalid exercise of power by Congress. In Lo- as to the constitutionality of these statgan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263, 286, 293, utory provisions. Ex parte Yarbrough, su36 L. ed. 429, 437, 439, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617, pra; United States v. Waddell, 112 U. S. 76, 623, 626, this court stated that the validity 28 L. ed. 673, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 35. Referring of § 5508 had been sustained in the Yar- to those provisions and to the clause of the brough Case, and, speaking by Mr. Justice Constitution giving Congress authority to Gray, said: "In United States v. Reese, 92 pass all laws necessary and proper for carU. S. 214, 217, 23 L. ed. 563, 564, decided at rying into execution the powers specifically October term, 1875, this court, speaking by granted to it, and all other powers vested in Chief Justice Waite, said: 'Rights and im- the government of the United States, munities created by or dependent upon the Constitution of the United States can be protected by Congress. The form and the manner of the protection may be such as Congress, in the legitimate exercise of its legislative discretion, shall provide. These may be varied to meet the necessities of the particular right to be protected." After referring to prior adjudications the court in the Logan Case also unanimously declared: "The whole scope and effect of this series of decisions is that, while certain fundamental rights, recognized and declared, but not granted or created, in some of the amendments to the Constitution, are thereby guaranteed only against violation or abridgment by the United States or by the states as the case may be, and cannot therefore be affirmatively enforced by Congress against I come now to the main question,unlawful acts of individuals, yet that every whether a conspiracy or combination to right created by, arising under, or depend- forcibly prevent citizens of African descent, ent upon, the Constitution of the United solely because of their race and color, from States, may be protected and enforced by disposing of their labor by contract upon Congress, by such means and in such man- such terms as they deem proper, and from ner as Congress, in the exercise of the cor- carrying out such contract, infringes or viorelative duty of protection, or of the legislates a right or privilege created by, derived lative powers conferred upon it by the Con- from, or dependent upon, the Constitution of stitution, may, in its discretion, deem most the United States. eligible and best adapted to attain the object."

In Motes v. United States, 178 U. S. 458, 44 L. ed. 1150, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 993, the lan guage of the court was:

"We have seen that by § 5508 of the Revised Statutes it is made an offense against the United States for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, the punishment prescribed being a fine of not more than $5,000, imprisonment not more than ten years, and ineligibility to any office or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the Constitution or laws of the United States. And by § 5509 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3712), it is provided that if, in committing the above offense, any other felony or misdemeanor be committed, the of- I

In view of these decisions it is unnecessary to examine the grounds upon which the constitutionality of § 5508 rests; and I may assume that the power of the national government, by appropriate legislation, to protect a right created by, derived from, or dependent in any degree upon, the Constitution of the United States, cannot be disputed.

Before the 13th Amendment was adopted the existence of freedom or slavery within any state depended wholly upon the Consti tution and laws of such state. However abhorrent to many was the thought that human beings of African descent were held as slaves and chattels, no remedy for that state of things as it existed in some of the states could be given by the United States in virtue of any power it possessed prior to the adoption of the 13th Amendment. That condition, however, underwent a radical change when that Amendment became a part of the supreme law of the land, and, as such, binding upon all the states and all the people, as well as upon every branch of government, Federal and state. By the Amendment it was ordained that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist

lished freedom and conferred upon every person within the jurisdiction of the United States (not held lawfully in custody for crime) the privileges that are fundamental in a state of freedom, and which were violently taken from the laborers in question solely because of their race and color.

Let us see whether these principles do not find abundant support in adjudged cases.

within the United States or any place sub- | deprive any person of life, liberty, or propject to their jurisdiction;" and "Congress erty without due process of law. To deshall have power to enforce this article by prive any person of a privilege inhering in appropriate legislation." Although in words the freedom ordained and established by the and form prohibitive, yet, in law, by its own 13th Amendment is to deprive him of a force, that Amendment destroyed slavery privilege inhering in the liberty recognized and all its incidents and badges, and estab- by the 14th Amendment. It is true that lished freedom. It also conferred upon every the present case is not one of the deprivaperson within the jurisdiction of the United tion, by the Constitution or laws of the States (except those legally imprisoned for state, of the privilege of disposing of one's crime) the right, without discrimination labor as he deems proper. But it is one of against them on account of their race, to a combination and conspiracy by individuals enjoy all the privileges that inhere in free-acting in hostility to rights conferred by dom. It went further, however, and by its the Amendment that ordained and estab2d section, invested Congress with power, by appropriate legislation, to enforce its provisions. To that end, by direct, primary legislation, Congress may not only prevent the re-establishing of the institution of slavery, pure and simple, but may make it impossible that any of its incidents or badges should exist or be enforced in any state or territory of the United States. It therefore became competent for Congress, One of the earliest cases arising under under the 13th Amendment, to make the the 13th Amendment was that of United establishing of slavery, as well as all at- States v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308, 318, 320, tempts, whether in the form of a conspiracy Fed. Cas. No. 14,897. It became necessary or otherwise, to subject anyone to the in that case for Mr. Justice Bradley, holdbadges or incidents of slavery, offenses ing the circuit court, to consider the scope against the United States, punishable by and effect of the 13th Amendment and the fine or imprisonment or both. And legisla- extent of the power of Congress to enforce tion of that character would certainly be its provisions. Referring to the 13th appropriate for the protection of whatever Amendment, that eminent jurist said that rights were given or created by the Amend-"this is not merely a prohibition against the ment. So, legislation making it an offense passage or enforcement of any law inflicting against the United States to conspire to in- or establishing slavery or involuntary servijure or intimidate a citizen in the free exer- tude, but it is a positive declaration that cise of any right secured by the Constitu- slavery shall not exist. . . . So, untion is broad enough to embrace a conspir-doubtedly, by the 13th Amendment, Conacy of the kind charged in the present in-gress has power to legislate for the entire dictment. "A right or immunity, whether eradication of slavery in the United States. created by the Constitution or only guaranteed by it, may be protected by Congress." This court so adjudged in Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 310, 25 L. ed. 664, 666, as it had previously adjudged in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539, 10 L. ed. 1060, and in United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 23 L. ed. 563. The colored laborers against whom the conspiracy in question was directed owe their freedom as well as their exemption from the incidents and badges of slavery alone to the Constitution of the United States. Yet it is said that their right to enjoy freedom and to be protected against the badges and incidents of slavery is not secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

It may be also observed that the freedom created and established by the 13th Amendment was further protected against assault when the 14th Amendment became a part of the supreme law of the land; for that Amendment provided that no state shall

This Amendment had an affirmative operation the moment it was adopted. It enfranchised four millions of slaves, if, indeed, they had not previously been enfranchised by the operation of the Civil War. Congress, therefore, acquired the power not only to legislate for the eradication of slavery, but the power to give full effect to this bestowment of liberty on these millions of people. All this it essayed to do by the civil rights bill passed April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. at L. 27, chap. 31), by which it was declared that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to a foreign power (except Indians, not taxed), should be citizens of the United States; and that such citizens, of every race and color, without any regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, should have the same right, in every state and territory, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and

[ocr errors]

to full and equal benefit of all laws and pro- | Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 20, 22, 27 L. ed. 835, 842, ceedings for the security of persons and 843, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18, 28, 29, in which the property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, court passed upon the constitutionality of and should be subject to like punishment, an act of Congress providing for the full and pains, and penalties, and to none other, any equal enjoyment by every race equally, of law, etc., to the contrary notwithstanding. the accommodations, advantages, and faciliIt was supposed that the eradication of ties of theaters and public conveyances, and slavery and involuntary servitude of every other places of public amusement; and in form and description required that the slave which the court also considered the scope should be made a citizen and placed on an and effect of the 13th Amendment. In that entire equality before the law with the white case the court, speaking by Mr. Justice citizen, and, therefore, that Congress had Bradley,-who, as we have seen, delivered the power, under the amendment, to declare the judgment in the case just cited,-said: and effectuate these objects. . Con- "By its own unaided force and effect it abolceding this to be true (which I think it is), ished slavery and established universal freeCongress then had the right to go further dom. Still, legislation may be necessary and to enforce its declaration by passing and proper to meet all the various cases laws for the prosecution and punishment of and circumstances to be affected by it, and those who should deprive or attempt to de- to prescribe proper modes of redress for its prive any person of the rights thus con- violation in letter or spirit. And such legferred upon them. Without having this islation may be primary and direct in its power, Congress could not enforce the character; for the Amendment is not a mere amendment. It cannot be doubted, there- prohibition of state laws establishing or upfore, that Congress had the power to make holding slavery, but an absolute declaration it a penal offense to conspire to deprive a that slavery or involuntary servitude shall person of, or to hinder him in, the exercise not exist in any part of the United States. and enjoyment of the rights and privileges It is true that slavery cannot exist without conferred by the 13th Amendment and the law, any more than property in lands and laws thus passed in pursuance thereof. But goods can exist without law; and, therefore, this power does not authorize Congress to the 13th Amendment may be regarded as pass laws for the punishment of ordinary nullifying all state laws which establish or crimes and offenses against persons of the uphold slavery. But it has a reflex characcolored race or any other race. That belongs ter also establishing and decreeing universal to the state government alone. All ordinary civil and political freedom throughout the murders, robberies, assaults, thefts and of- United States; and it is assumed that the fenses whatsoever are cognizable only in the power vested in Congress to enforce the artistate courts, unless, indeed, the state should cle by appropriate legislation clothes Condeny to the class of persons referred to the gress with power to pass all laws necessary equal protection of the laws. To il- and proper for abolishing all badges and incilustrate: If in a community or neighborhood dents of slavery in the United States. composed principally of whites, a citizen of African descent, or of the Indian race, not within the exception of the Amendment, should propose to lease and cultivate a farm, and a combination should be formed to expel him and prevent him from the accomplishment of his purpose on account of his race or color, it cannot be doubted that this would be a case within the power of Congress to remedy and redress. It would be a case of interference with that person's exercise of his equal rights as a citizen because of his race. But if that person should be injured in his person or property by any wrongdoer for the mere felonious or wrongful purpose of malice, revenge, hatred, or gain, without any design to interfere with his rights of citizenship or equality before the laws, as being a person of a different race and color from the white race, it would be an ordinary crime, punishable by the state laws only."

The long existence of African slavery in this country gave us very distinct notions of what it was and what were its necessary incidents. Compulsory service of the slave for the benefit of the master, restraint of his movements except by the master's will, disability to hold property, to make contracts, to have a standing in court, to be a witness against a white person, and such like burdens and incapacities, were the inseparable incidents of the institution. Severer punishments for crimes were imposed on the slave than on free persons guilty of

We must not

the same offenses. . . forget that the province and scope of the 13th and 14th Amendments are different; the former simply abolished slavery; the latter prohibited the states from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, by depriving them of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying to any the This was followed by the Civil Rights equal protection of the laws. The Amend

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »