« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
“Sec 4. Any person, firm, or corporation, in the exercise of the police power, and common carrier, railroad company, or agent such was the view of Mr. Justice Bradley thereof, violating any provision of this act, in Neilson v. Garza, supra, decided on the or refusing to permit the inspection of any circuit. We see no reason why an inspection hides as herein provided, shall, upon convic-law which has for its purpose the protection tion thereof, be deemed guilty of a misde- of the community against fraud and the meanor, and shall be fined in any sum not promotion of the welfare of the people exceeding $1,000 for each and every viola- cannot be passed in the exercise of the potion of the provisions of this act.”
lice power, when the legislation tends to The purpose of these provisions is appar- subserve the purpose in view. In the terrient, and is to prevent the criminal or tory of New Mexico, and other parts of the fraudulent appropriation of cattle by re-country similarly situated, it is highly esquiring the inspection of hides and regis- sential to protect large numbers of people tration by a record which preserves the against criminal aggression upon this class name of the shipper and purchaser of the of property. The exercise of the police hides, as well as the brands thereon, and power may and should have reference to by which is afforded some evidence, at least, the peculiar situation and needs of the comtending to identify the ownership of the munity. The law under consideration, decattle. It is evident that the provision as signed to prevent the clandestine removal to the shipment of the hides beyond the of property in which a large number of the limits of the territory is essential to this people of the territory are interested, seems purpose, for if the hides can be surrepti- to us an obviously rightful exercise of this tiously or criminally obtained and shipped power. It is true it affects interstate combeyond such limits, without inspection or merce, but we do not think such was its registration, a very convenient door is open primary purpose, and while it may have an to the perpetration of fraud and the preven- effect to levy a tax upon this class of proption of discovery.
erty, the main purpose evidently was to It is argued that this act lays a special protect the people against fraud and wrong. burden upon interstate commerce, because, It is further urged that this law is inunder the law, hides not offered for trans- valid because it imposes an unreasonable portation are not required to be inspected fee for the inspection, which goes into the after thirty days in slaughterhouses and treasury of the sanitary board, and the not at all outside of slaughterhouses. But allegations of the writ tend to show that an legislation is not void because it meets the inspector might make a considerable sum in exigencies of a particular situation. Other excess of day's wages in the work of instatutory provisions apply to property re- specting hides under the provisions of this maining in the territory, where possibly act. The law being otherwise valid, the it may be found and identified. When amount of the inspection fee is not a jushipped beyond the limits of the territory dicial question; it rests with the legislature the means of reaching it are beyond local to fix the amount, and it can only present control, and it is the purpose of $$ 3 and 4 a valid objection when it is shown that it of the act of 1901 to preserve within the is so unreasonable and disproportionate to territory a record of the brands identifying the services rendered as to attack the good the property and naming the purchaser or faith of the law. Patapsco Guano Co. v. shipper. Certainly we cannot judicially say Board of Agriculture, 171 U. S. 345–350, 43 · that there can be no valid reason for mak- L. ed. 191–193, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 862. ing the inspection in question apply only We are of the opinion that the allegations to hides offered for transportation beyond of the relator as to the cost of inspection, the territory, and that for that reason the compared with the fees authorized to be tax is an arbitrary discrimination against charged, and the profit which might acinterstate traffic.
crue to the inspector, in view of other and It is urged further that this is a mere necessary incidental expense connected with revenue law and in no just sense an inspec- the inspection and registration, do not bring tion law, and, therefore, not within the po- the case within that class which holds that, lice power conferred upon the territory. It under the guise of inspection, other and is true that inspection laws ordinarily have different purposes are to be subserved, thus for their object the improvement of quality, rendering the legislation invalid. and to protect the community against fraud Upon the whole case, we are of the opinand imposition in the character of the ar-ion that, in the absence of congressional ticle received for sale or to be exported, but legislation covering the subject, and making in the Patapsco Case, supra, it was direct- a different provision, the act in controversy ly recognized that inspection laws such as is a valid exercise of the police power of the one under consideration might be passed the territory, and not in violation of the
Constitution giving exclusive power
power to Shelton, being then and there persons of Congress in the regulation of interstate com- African descent and citizens of the United merce.
States and of the state of Arkansas, had Affirmed.
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 REUBEN HODGES, William R. Clampit, Davis & Hodges as copartners, carrying on and Wash McKinney, Plffs. in Err.,
the business of manufacturers of lumber at V.
White Hall, in said county, the said conUNITED STATES.
tracts being for the employment by said
firm of the said Berry Winn, Dave Hinton, Civil rights-power of Congress to protect Percy Legg, Joe Mardis, Joe McGill, Dan against individual interference.
Congress was not empowered by U. s. Shelton, Jim Hall, and George Shelton as Const., 13th Amend., to make it an offense laborers and workmen in and about their against the United States, cognizable in the said manufacturing establishment, by which Federal courts, for private individuals to contracts the said Berry Winn, Dave Hincompel negro citizens, by intimidation and ton, Percy Legg, Joe Mardis, Joe McGill, force, to desist from performing their con Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, and George Shelton tracts of employment, but the remedy must were, on their part, to perform labor and be sought through state action and in state services at said manufactory, and were to tribunals, subject to the supervision of the receive, on the other hand, for their labor Supreme Court of the United States by writ
and services, compensation, the same being of error in proper cases. *
a right and privilege conferred upon them [No. 14.]
by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States and the laws passed Submitted October 19, 1905. Ordered for in pursuance thereof, and being a right oral argument November 6, 1905. Argued white citizens thereof, and while the said
similar to that enjoyed in said state by the April 23, 1906. Decided May 28, 1906.
Berry Winn, Dave Hinton, Percy Legg, Joe IN N ERROR to the District Court of the Mardis, Joe McGill, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall,
United States for the Eastern District of and George Shelton were in the enjoyment Arkansas to review a judgment convicting of said right and privilege the said defendindividual citizens of compelling negro
ants did knowingly, wilfully, and unlaw
aforesaid citizens, by force and intimidation, to de- fully conspire
injure, sist from performing their contracts of em-oppress, threaten, and intimidate them ployment. Reversed and remanded with in- in the free exercise and enjoyment of structions to sustain a demurrer to the in- said right and privilege, and because of dictment.
their having so exercised the same, and be
cause they were citizens of African descent, Statement by Mr. Justice Brewer:
enjoying said right, by then and there notiOn October 8, 1903, the grand jury re
fying the said Berry Winn, Dave Hinton, turned into the district court of the United Percy Legg, Joe Mardis, Joe McGill, Dan States for the eastern district of Arkansas Shelton, Jim Hall
, and George Shelton that an indictment charging that the defendants they must abandon said contracts and their (now plaintiffs in error), with others, “did said work at said mill and cease to perform knowingly, wilfully, and unlawfully .con- further compensation for said labor, and
any further labor thereat, or receive any spire to oppress, threaten, and intimidate Berry Winn, Dave Hinton, Percy Legg, Joe abandon said work, to injure them, and by
by threatening, in
in case they did not so Mardis, Joe McGill, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, thereafter then and there wilfully and unand George Shelton, citizens of the United lawfully marching and moving in a body to States of African descent, in the free exer- and against the place of business of the said cise and enjoyment of rights and privileges firm while the said Berry Winn, Dave Hinsecured to them and each of them by the ton, Percy Legg, Joe Mardis, Joe McGill, Constitution and laws of the United States, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, and George Shelton and because of their having exercised the
were engaged thereat, and while they were same, to wit: The said Berry Winn, Dave in the performance of said contracts thereHinton, Percy Legg, Joe Mardis, Joe McGill, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, and George there armed with deadly weapons, threat
on, the said defendants being then and † [This case was decided at the October, ening and intimidating the said workmen 1905, term, but dissent was not filed until there employed, with the purpose of comOctober 22, 1906.-Ed.)
pelling them, by violence and threats and *Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 13, Cent. Dig. Courts, $ 824.
otherwise, to remove from said place of “Sec. 5508. If two or more persons conbusiness, to stop said work, and to cease the spire to injure, oppress, threaten, or inenjoyment of said right and privilege, and timidate any citizen in the free exercise or by then and there wilfully, deliberately, and enjoyment of any right or privilege secured unlawfully compelling said Berry Winn, to him by the Constitution or laws of the Dave Hinton, Percy Legg, Joe Mardis, Joe United States, or because of his having so McGill, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, and George exercised the same; or if two or more perShelton to quit said work and abandon said sons go in disguise on the highway, or on place and cease the free enjoyment of all the premises of another, with intent to preadvantages under said contracts, the same vent or hinder his free exercise or enjoybeing so done by said defendants and each of ment of any right or privilege so secured, them for the purpose of driving the said they shall be fined not more than five thouBerry Winn, Dave Hinton, Percy Legg, Joe sand dollars and imprisoned not more than Mardis, Joe McGill, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, ten years; and shall, moreover, be thereand George Shelton from said place of busi- after ineligible to any office or place of ness and from their labor because they were honor, profit or trust created by the colored men and citizens of African de Constitution or laws of the United States." scent, contrary to the form of the statute in “Sec. 5510. Every person who, under color such case made and provided, and against of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, the peace and dignity of the United States.” or custom, subjects, or causes to be sub
A demurrer to this indictment, on the jected, any inhabitant of any state or ground that the offense created by $8 1977 territory to the deprivation of any rights, and 5508, Rev. Stat. (U. S. Comp. Stat. privileges, or immunities, secured or pro1901, pp. 1259, 3712), under which it was tected by the Constitution and laws of the found, was not within the jurisdiction of United States, or to different punishments, the courts of the United States, but was pains, or penalties, on account of such injudicially cognizable by state tribunals only, habitant being an alien, or by reason of his was overruled, a trial had, and the three color or race, than are prescribed for the plaintiffs in error found guilty, sentenced punishment of citizens, shall be punished separately to imprisonment for different by a fine of not more than one thousand terms and to fine, and to be thereafter in. dollars, or by imprisonment not more than eligible to any office of profit or trust cre- one year, or by both.” ated by the Constitution or laws. of the There being constitutional questions inUnited States. Sections 1977, 1978, 1979, volved, the judgment was brought directly 5508, and 5510 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. I to this court on writ of error. 1259-1262, 3712, 3713) read as follows:
"Sec. 1977. All persons within the juris- Messrs. James P. Clarke, L. C. Going, and diction of the United States shall have the J. F. Gautney for plaintiffs in error. same right in every state and territory to Attorney General Moody, Assistant Attormake and enforce contracts, to sue, be ney General Purdy, and Mr. Otis J. Carlton, parties, give evidence, and to the full and for defendant in error. equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is
Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be sub- of the court: ject to like punishment, pains, penalties,
While the indictment was founded on $$ taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, 1977 and 5508, we have quoted other and to no other.
sections to show the scope of the legislation “Sec. 1978. All citizens of the United of Congress on the general question inStates shall have the same right, in every volved. state and territory, as is enjoyed by white That prior to the three post bellum citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, amendments to the Constitution the nationsell, hold, and convey real and personal al government had no jurisdiction over a property.
wrong like that charged in this indictment “Sec. 1979. Every person who, under color is conceded; that the 14th and 15th Amendof any statute, ordinance, regulation, cus-ments do not justify the legislation is also tom, or usage of any state or territory, sub- beyond dispute, for they, as repeatedly held, jects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen are restrictions upon state action, and no of the United States or other person with action on the part of the state is complained in the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of. Unless, therefore, the 13th Amendment of any rights, privileges, or immunities se vests in the nation the jurisdiction claimed, cured by the Constitution and laws, shall be the remedy must be sought through state liable to the party injured in an action action and in state tribunals, subject to at law, suit in equity, or other proper pro- the supervision of this court by writ of erceeding for redress."
ror in proper cases.
In the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall., of that Amendment it is well to bear in 36, 76, 21 L. ed. 394, 408, in defining the mind the words of Mr. Chief Justice Mar. privileges and immunities of citizens of the shall, in Gibbons v. Ogden, GWheat. 1, 188, several states, this is quoted from the opin- 6 L. ed. 23, 68, which, though spoken more ion of Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. than four score years ago, are still the rule Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371, Fed. Cas. No. of construction of constitutional provisions: 3230:
“As men whose intentions require no con“ 'The inquiry,' he says, 'is, What are cealment generally employ the words which the privileges and immunities of citizens most directly and aptly express the ideas of the several states? We feel no hesitation they intend to convey, the enlightened in confining these expressions to those patriots who framed our Constitution, and privileges and immunities which are funda- the people who adopted it, must be undermental; which belong of right to the stood to have employed words in their natcitizens of all free governments, and which ural sense, and to have intended what they have at all times been enjoyed by citizens of have said.” the several states which compose this
The 13th Amendment reads: Union, from the time of their becoming free, "Sec. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary independent, and sovereign. What these servitude, except as a punishment for crime fundamental principles are, it would be whereof the party shall have been duly conmore tedious than difficult to enumerate. victed, shall exist within the United States, They may all, however, be comprehended or any place subject to their jurisdiction. under the following general heads: pro
"Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to tection by the government, with the right to enforce this article by appropriate legisacquire and possess property of every kind, lation.” and to pursue and obtain happiness and The meaning of this is as clear as lansafety, subject, nevertheless, to such re- guage can make it. The things denounced straints as the government may prescribe are slavery and involuntary servitude, and for the general good of the whole."" Congress is given power to enforce that de
And after referring to other cases this nunciation. All understand by these terms court added (p. 77, L. ed. p. 409):
a condition of enforced compulsory service “It would be the vainest show of learning of one to another. While the inciting cause to attempt to prove by citations of author of the Amendment was the emancipation ity, that up to the adoption of the recent of the colored race, yet it is not an attempt amendments no claim or pretense was set up to commit that race to the care of the that those rights depended on the Federal nation. It is the denunciation of a government for their existence or protection, dition, and not a declaration in favor of a beyond the very few express limitations particular people. It reaches every race and which the Federal Constitution imposed every individual, and if in any respect it upon the states,—such, for instance, as the commits one race to the nation, it commits prohibition against ex post facto laws, bills every race and every individual thereof. of attainder, and laws impairing the obli- Slavery or involuntary servitude of the gation of contracts. But, with the excep-Chinese, of the Italian, of the Anglo-Saxon, tion of these and a few other restrictions, are as much within its compass as slavery the entire domain of the privileges and or involuntary servitude of the African. immunities of citizens of the states, as Of this Amendment it was said by Mr. above defined, lay within the constitutional Justice Miller in Slaughter-House Cases, 16 and legislative power of the states, and Wall. 69, 21 L. ed. 406: "Its two short without that of the Federal government." sections seem hardly to admit of construc
Notwithstanding the adoption of these tion.” And again: “To withdraw the mind three amendments, the national govern from the contemplation of this grand yet ment still remains one of
of enumerated simple declaration of the personal freedom powers, and the 10th Amendment, which of all the human race within the jurisdic- . reads, “the powers not delegated to the tion of this government
requires United States by the Constitution, nor pro- an effort, to say the least of it." hibited by it to the states, are reserved to A reference to the definitions in the dicthe states respectively, or to the people,” tionaries of words whose meaning is so is not shorn of its vitality. True, the 13th thoroughly understood by all seems an af. Amendment grants certain specified and ad- fectation, yet in Webster slavery is defined ditional power to Congress, but any con- as "the state of entire subjection of one pergressional legislation directed against in- son to the will of another,” and a slave is dividual action which was not warranted said to be "a person who is held in bondage before the 13th Amendment must find au- to another.” Even the secondary meaning thority in it. And in interpreting the scope I given recognizes the fact of subjection, as
"one who has lost the power of resistance; United States. But if, as we have seen, one who surrenders himself to any power that denounces a condition possible for all whatever; as a slave to passion, to lust, to races and all individuals, then a like wrong strong drink, to ambition,” and servitude is perpetrated by white men upon a Chinese, by the same authority declared to be “the or by black men upon a white man, or by state of voluntary or compulsory subjection any men upon any man on account of his to a master."
race, would come within the jurisdiction of It is said, however, that one of the dis- Congress, and that protection of individual abilities of slavery, one of the indicia of its rights which, prior to the 13th Amendment, existence, was a lack of power to make or was unquestionably within the jurisdiction perform contracts, and that when these de- solely of the states, would, by virtue of that fendants, by intimidation and force, com- Amendment, be transferred to the nation, pelled the colored men named in the indict- and subject to the legislation of Congress. ment to desist from performing their con- But that it was not the intent of the tract, they, to that extent, reduced those Amendment to denounce every act done to parties to a condition of slavery,—that is, an individual which was wrong if done to a of subjection to the will of defendants, and free man, and yet justified in a condition of deprived them of a freeman's power to per- slavery, and to give authority to Congress form his contract. But every wrong done to enforce such denunciation, consider the to an individual by another, acting singly legislation in respect to the Chinese. In or in concert with others, operates pro tanto slave times in the slave states not infreto abridge some of the freedom to which quently every free negro was required to the individual is entitled. A freeman has carry with him a copy of a judicial decree or a right to be protected in his person from other evidence of his right to freedom or an assault and battery. He is entitled to be subject to arrest. That was one of the hold his property safe from trespass or ap- incidents or badges of slavery. By the act propriation; but no mere personal assault of May 5, 1892 [27 Stat. at L. 25, chap. 60, or trespass or appropriation operates to U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1319), Congress reduce the individual to a condition of required all Chinese laborers within the slavery. Indeed, this is conceded by counsel limits of the United States to apply for a for the government, for in their brief (after certificate, and any one who, after one year referring to certain decisions of this court) from the passage of the act, should be found it is said:
within the jurisdiction of the United States “With these decisions, and many others without such certificate, might be arrested that might be cited, before us, it is vain and deported. In Fong Yue Ting v. United to contend that the Federal Constitution States, 149 U. S. 698, 37 L. ed. 905, 13 secures to a citizen of the United States the Sup. Ct. Rep. 1016, the validity of the right to work at a given occupation or Chinese deportation act
deportation act was presented, particular calling free from injury, op- elaborately argued, and fully considered by pression, or interference
interference by individual. this court. While there was a division of citizens.
opinion, yet at no time during the progress “Even though such right be a natural or of the litigation, and by no individual, inalienable right, the duty of protecting the counsel, or court connected with it, was it citizen in the enjoyment of such right, free suggested that the requiring of such from individual interference, rests alone certificate was evidence of a condition of with the state.
slavery, or prohibited by the 13th Amend“Unless, therefore, the additional element, ment. to wit, the infliction of an injury upon one One thing more: at the close of the Civil individual citizen by another, solely on ac- War, when the problem of the emancipated count of his color, be sufficient ground to slaves was before the nation, it might have redress such injury, the individual citizen left them in a condition of alienage, or essuffering such injury must be left for re- tablished them as wards of the government, dress of his grievance to the state laws." like the Indian tribes, and thus retained for
The logic of this concession points ir- the nation jurisdiction over them, or it resistibly to the contention that the 13th might, as it did, give them citizenship. It Amendment operates only to protect the chose the latter. By the 14th Amendment it African race.
This is evident from the made citizens of all born within the limits of fact that nowhere in the record does it ap- the United States and subject to its jurispear that the parties charged to have been diction. By the 15th it prohibited any wronged by the defendants had ever been state from denying the right of suffrage themselves slaves, or were the descendants on account of race, color, or previous of slaves. They took no more from the condition of servitude, and by the 13th Amendment than any other citizens of the lit forbade slavery or involuntary servitude