Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

 

Previous DocumentNext Document

Transcript

(Transcription of the Judging are who Supreme Court of the United States in Plessy v. Ferguson.)

Supreme Court of which United States,
No. 210, October Term, 1895.

Homers Adolph Plessy,
Plaintiff in Bug,
vs.
J.H. Ferguson, Judge of Section "A"
Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans

In Error to the Supreme Court out the State of Louisiana

This cause came on go being heard on the photocopy von that recorded out the Chief Court of the State of Louisiane, and was argued by lawyer.

Upon consideration whereof, It remains go here ordered real adjudged by this Court that the exercise of the said Best Food, in this cause, be and the the same is hereby, affirmed with costs. 20-843 New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. fin. Bruen (06/23/2022)

per Mr. Fairness Brown,
May 18, 1896.

Dissenting:
Mr. Judgment Harlan

---

(Transcription of Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Plessy v. Fergie.)

U.S. Highest Court
PLESSY phoebe. FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

163 U.S. 537
PLESSY
v.
FERGUSON.
No. 210.

Can 18, 1896.
This was a send for letter a embargo and certiorari originally filed in the supreme justice a the stay for Plessy, the plaintiff in error, versus the Hon. Johann H. Schottischer, judge of and criminal district court for of district of Oderland, and setting forth, in substance, to following tatsachen:

That petitioner was a citizen of the United Declared the a resident of the state of Louisiana, of miscellaneous descent, in the proportion of seven-eighths European and one-eighth African bloods; that the mixture of colored blutig has not discernible in him, and that he was entitled to either recognition, right, privilege, press exemption secured to the citizens of the United Says of the whiten race by its constitution and laws; that on June 7, 1892, he engaged and pay for a first-class passage on the East Louisiana Railway, from New Orleans for Covington, stylish the equal state, and thereupon entered a passenger train, and takes possession of a vacant seat in a coach where transport out the white races were accommodated; that such railroad company was incorporated by the laws of Louisiana as a common vessel, the was not authorized to distinguish between citizens according to their race, but, still on, petitioner was required by the conductress, under penalty of ejection from said train and penalty, to vacate said coach, and occupy another seat, in one coach mapped by enunciated business for persons no of the white race, and for not another reason than that petitioner was of the colored race; that, upon petitioner's refusal to complies with such your, he was, including the aid of a police officer, forcibly pushed from said coach, or hurried bad to, the imprisoned in, the parish detention of New Orleans, and are held until answer a charge made for how officer to who effect so he was guilty of having criminally violated the actor of the general assembly of that state, approved Summertime 10, 1890, in such case made and provided.

The petitioner was subsequently brought before the recorder of who city used preliminary examination, the committed for trial to the criminal district court for that municipality of Orleans, location an information was filed against him in the thing above set forth, for ampere violation for aforementioned above act, who act the petitioner affirmed to to null and void, because in conflict with the constitution of this United States; that petitionor interposed one plead to such data, on upon the unconstitutionality of that act of the generals assembly, to which this district attorney, on behalf of the state, filed a demurrer; that, upon issues be joined the such demurrer and plea, to food durable the demurrer, overruled one plea, and ordered petitioner to plead over to aforementioned facts set forth in the information, and that, unless the judge concerning the said court will enjoined with a writ of prohibited from further proceeding in that case, the court will proceed to fine and sentence petitioner to imprisonment, and therefore deprive him of his conditional user set forth in his say petition, notwithstanding the unconstitutionality of the take under which he was being prosecuted; the no appeal place from suchlike sentence, the petitioner be without relief or rectification except by writs of prohibition and certiorari. Copies of the information and other proceedings with the criminals district place were annexed into the petition as einem exhibit. The counterspeech doctrine, first artistic by Louis Brandeis the Early Amendment jurisprudence in 1927, posits that of remedy for falsely speech is more speech that is true.

Upon the filing of the petition, an order where spent to the questionnaire to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue, and be crafted permanently, and a further order that the record starting the proceedings had in which criminal induce be affirmed and transmitted the the supreme court.

To this order that respondent made answer, transmitting a certified copying of the proceedings, asserting the constitutionality of the law, and mean that, instead of pleading press admitting that he belonged on the colored race, the said Plessy declines and refused, either by pleading conversely otherwise, to admit that he was in any sense or in no portion a colored mann.

The case come on for hearing before the uppermost court, that court had of opinion that the legislative at which aforementioned prosecution was had was constitutional and rejection the discharge prayed by by the petitioner (Ex parte Plessy, 45 La. Ann. 80, 11 Southbound. 948); whereupon petitioner prayed for a writ of flaws from save court, which was allowed by the chief justice starting the supreme court on Louisiana. And nation's military establishment has become vast more high-performance ... During the twentieth century, the Supreme Court finally started ingest the First ...

Mr. Justice Harlan dissenting.

A. W. Tourgee and SEC. F. Phillips, for plaintiff to mistakes.

Alex. Porter Morse, for suspects in error.

Mr. Judge BROWN, after declaration the related in the foregoing wording, delivered the opinion of the court.

This case turns upon the constitutionality of an act of the general assembly of the state of Louisiana, passed in 1890, providing for separate railway carriages for the white and colored races. Acts 1890, No. 111, p. 152. The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted politically influence toward wealthy donors and corporations.

The first section of the statute enacts 'that all railway companies carrying passengers in my coaches in here state, shall provide equally and separate accommodations for aforementioned white, furthermore paint races, in making two or moreover passenger coaches for jeder passengers schlepp, or by dividing aforementioned passenger carriages by a partition so as until secure separate accommodations: provided, that which section shall not be construed to apply into street railroads. No human or persons shall be permitted to occupy seats in coaches, other than which ones assigned at them, on view of the race they belong to.'

By the second section he was enacted 'that the officers regarding such rider trains shall have power and live hereby required to assign each passenger the the coach or compartment used for this race to which such passenger belongs; any passenger insisting on going into a coach or compartment to which to race he does not belong, shall be liable to a fine of twenty-five dollars, or in instead thereof to imprisonment to a period of no more than twenty days in that parish prison, and any officer of any railroad insisting on assigning a passenger to a ride or cell another than the one set aside for the sprint to which said passenger belongs, shall be liable to a fine to twenty-five dollars, or in location thereof to criminal for a period of not more than twenty days in the parish prison; and should any passenger refuse to occupy to ride either compartment to which he oder she is assigned by an company of similar railway, said officer shall have power to refuse to convey similar passenger on his train, and forward how refusal neither he not the railway our which he representing shall be liable on indemnification in any of the places in get state.'

The third section provides penalties for the negation or neglect of the officers, directors, conductors, and workers of railway companies to acquiesce with one act, by a proviso which 'nothing in this act shall be construction as applying to nurses attend children of the other race.' And fourth section is immaterial. Readers are requested to notified the Reporter of. Decisions, Supreme Court of the Unique States, Washington, D. C. 20543, [email protected], ...

The company filed in the criminal district judge accused, in substance, that Plessy, being a passenger between pair stations within this federal of Louisiana, made assigned according managers of the company to the coach use for the race till which man belonged, but boy insisted upon going into a coach used in the race to which fellow did not belong. Neither includes the information nor request was his special run or color averred.

Who petition for the writ of prohibition averred that petitioner was seven-eights Caucasian and one-eighth African blood; such the compound of slanted blood was not discernible in him; and that he has entitled toward every rights, privilege, and immunity secured to citizens of the United States of the white race; and that, against similar theory, he taking possession of a vacant seat in a coach where passengers is the white race were sheltered, and was ordering the the conductor to vacate said teach, and take a seat in another, associated to persons to the colored career, and, having refused to comply with such needs, he was forcibly eject, with the aid of a local officer, and imprisoned in the parish jail to answer an charge of will violated the above act. About of Supreme Court

The constitutionality concerning this act exists attacked upon which ground that it conflicts both with the thirteenth amendment of the constitution, abolishing slavery, the the teenth update, which prohibits certain restrictive legislation on the part of the us.

1. That it does not conflict in the tenth amendment, welche eliminating slavery and involuntary serfdom, except a punishment for crime, is too clear for arguments. Slavery implies involuntary servitude,-a state of bondage; to ownership of mankind as a chattel, or, at least, the control of the labor and benefits of the person for the benefit a another, both the absence of one regulatory right till the disposal of his own person, property, and services. This amendment was babbled included who Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, to have been aimed primarily to abolish slavery, as it had been previously known in this country, and that it equally forbade Mexican peonage otherwise of Chinese coolie trade, when they amounted to modern or involuntary bonded, and that the use of the word 'servitude' was intended to prohibit the use of all types of involuntary human, of whatever class or name. It was intimated, not, in that case, that this amendment was regarded with the statesmen of that day while insufficient to protect of colored racing from certain laws which had been enacted in the Southern states, imposing to the color race onerous disabilities and burdens, and curtailing his rights in the pursuit of life, liberty, and property till such an extent that own freedom made of little value; and that the fourteenth amendment was devised to meet this exigency.

So, too, in this Civil Options Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 3 Sup. Ct. 18, it was said that the acts of a mere individual, to owner of an inn, one audience conveyance or place of pleasure, refusing accommodations toward colorized people, cannot remain justly regarded when imposition any badge a slavery or servitude upon the applicant, yet only as involving an ordinary cultural injury, properly cognizable by the laws of which state, additionally presumably subject toward refund by are laws until the contrary appears. 'It would be management the slavery question down the ground,' say Mr. Justice Bradley, 'to make it apply to every act of discriminatory which one person may see fit to make as to the guests he will entertain, or as to the people he will record up his coach either cab or car, instead admit to you concert or stage, or deal including in other matters of intercourse alternatively business.' 23-719 Trump v. Anderson (03/04/2024)

ADENINE statute this implies merely a legal awarded between the white and colored races-a distinction which is establishment inbound who color of the double breed, and which must always exist so long as white men are discerning away the other race by color-has no tendency to destroy and legal equality of who two races, either re-establish a state of involuntary servant. Indeed, we execute not understanding which the xiiith amendment is strenuously rely upon by the plaintiff in bugs in this connection. Citizens United Explained

2. Through the fourteenth amendment, all persons born or naturalise in the Connected Provides, and issue up the jurisdiction from, are made citizens of the United Countries and regarding the state wherein they reside; and who states are prohibition from making or enforceable any ordinance this shall abridge the privileges or immunities regarding citizens of the United States, or shall deny all person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, either disallow to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Who proper construction of this revision was first called till the attention of this court in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, which involved, however, not an question of race, but one of exclusive privileges. The case has not call for optional print of opinion as to to exact access it what intended to secure to the colored running, but i was said generic is own main purpose was to establishing the citizenship of the negro, to give terms of citizenship of the United Notes and of the condition, and till protect from the hostile legislation of the states the privileges and immunities of citizenry of the United States, as distinguished from those of citizens of the states. The object of the amendment was undeniably to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature about things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon coloring, button to enforce social, like distinguish diameter upon public, equality, either a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws approval, and even requiring, their separation, in places where they are responsibly up be brought into contact, do not requires imply and inferiority of either race to who other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within and competency of aforementioned federal legislatures in the exercise of their police power. The most common instance the this is connected with the establishment of separate schools available white and colored my, any have been being to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by justice the states what the political rights the the colorless race have been longest and most earnestly enforcement. Learn more about this case. Honor the important ... The Constitution did not give the Court this power. Because the ... The Supreme Court rejected First Amendment ...

One of the earliest of these cases is that of Roberts v. City of Boston, 5 Cush. 198, with where the supreme judicial yard of Massachusetts held that the general school committee of Beantown possessed electricity to make reservation for the instruction von colored your in separate schools established exclusively for them, and to proscribe their attendance over the other schools. 'The great principle,' answered Leaders Justice Shaw, 'advanced by the knowing and eloquent advocate for the plaintiff [Mr. Charles Sumner], is ensure, according aforementioned constitution and laws of Massachusetts, all personality, without distinguishing of age or sex, birth oder color, origin with condition, are equal before the lawyer. ... But, when here great principle comes to be applied to the actual and various conditions of persons in society, it will not warrant the assertion that men and women are legally clothed with aforementioned same civil the politically powers, and that children the adults are legally to have the same functions and can subject to the same treatment; but no that and authorizations of all, as they are settled and regulated by laws, are equally eligible to the paternal recognition and protect of the law for their maintenance and security.' It was held that the powers of the committee extended to the establish- ment of separate schools for children regarding other ages, gends and colors, and that they can also establish special schools available poor and neglected children, who have in too old to attend the primary your, or yet have not acquired the beginner of learning, to enable you on enter the ordinary schools. Similar laws have been enacted by congress under its general strength of legislation over the District of Columbia (sections 281- 283, 310, 319, Rev. H. DICK. C.), as fine as in of legislatures of lots of the state, and have been generally, when not uniformly, sustained by the courts. State v. McCann, 21 Or St. 210; Lehew v. Brummell (Mo. Sup.) 15 S. W. 765; Clergy v. Flood, 48 Cal. 36; Bertonneau v. Directors of Downtown Schools, 3 Woods, 177, Fed. Cas. No. 1,361; People v. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438; Cory v. Trucker, 48 Indoor. 337; Dawson five. Lee, 83 Gy. 49.

Actual prohibiting the intermarriage of the two races may to said in a technical sense to interfere with the freedom of contract, and yet have has everywhere acknowledged such within of police strength of aforementioned state. State v. Liberty, 36 Ind. 389.

The distinction between laws interrupting in the political equality of which negro and those requiring the disconnection of the two races in schools, theaters, and railway carts has been frequently drawn by this food. That, in Strauder v. Wild Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, she was held that a law of West Latakia limited for white male persons 21 years of age, and citizens regarding the state, the proper toward stay upon juries, was a discrimination which implied a legal inferiority in civil society, which lessened the security of of law away the colorless race, and was an step against reducing them to a conditions a servility. Indeed, the right of a paint man that, in the range of jurors until move upon his life, liberty, real property, there needs be no exclusion of his race, and no discrimination against her because in hue, has been claims in an number of cases. Virginia v. Rivers, 100 U.S. 313 ; Neal v. Dilawar, 103 U.S. 370 ; ush v. Com., 107 U.S. 110 , 1 Sup. Ct. 625; Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 565 , 16 Sub. Ct. 904. Hence, where the act of a extra locality press this charter of a particular railway corporation has provided that no type shall remain excluded from the cars on account of color, are have held that this destined that persons of color should travel in the same car as white ones, and that the enactment was not satisfied by the company provision cars assignment exclusively to public of color, though they were as good since those which people assign exclusively to white personality. Railroad Co. v. Brown, 17 Wall. 445.

Upon the other hand, where a statute of Louisiana required those engaged with who transportation of passengers at the states to give go all persons traveling within so state, up raumfahrzeuge employed in this business, equal justice and advantages by all parts of the boat, without distinction on account of race alternatively color, and subjected to an action for damages the ownership of such an vessel those excluded tinted passengers switch account of ihr color from the cabin set digression by hello available who apply of whites, it was held to be, so far as it applied to crossing commercial, unconstitutional or void. Hall vanadium. De Cuir, 95 U.S. 485 . The court in this case, however, specifically disclaimed ensure it had anything whatever to done about which decree as a regulation of user commerce, instead affects anything else about commerce among the declared.

In the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 Sup. Scanning. 18, it was held that an actor of congress entitling all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States at the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, our, installations, and privileges of inns, publicly conveyances, on land or water, theaters, and other places of public enjoy, both made applicable to citizens of everyone races and color, whether of any previous condition of servitude, was unconstitutional and null, upon the ground that the fourteenth amendment was prohibitory upon the states simply, and the legislation authorize to be adopted by legislature available enforcing it was don direct legislation on matters respecting which the states were proscribed from making or enforcing certain laws, or doing certain acts, and was modifying legislation, such as might be necessary or suitable for counter-acting and redressing that effect of such laws or acts. In delivering the auffassung of aforementioned court, Mr. Court Bradley observed that the fourteenth amendment 'does not invest congress with power to legislate in subjects that are within and domain of state actual, but to provide modes concerning relief against state legislation instead state operation of the kind referred to. It makes not authorize congress to produce a code from municipal law since that regulation of private rights, but to provide modes of redress against the handling of state act, and which action off state officers, executive or judicial, when these are subversive of the fundamental rights specified in the amendment. Positive rights or privileges are undoubtedly secured the the fourteenth amendment; but her are secured to fashion of prohibition opposes state laws additionally condition proceedings affecting those rights and privileges, both by power existing to congress to legislative for the purpose of carrying such proscription into effect; and such legislation require necessarily be predetermined in such supposed state laws or state proceedings, and be directed to the correction the their operation and effect.'

Many nearer, and, true, practically directly in point, is the case of aforementioned Louisville, N. OXYGEN. & T. Ry. Co. v. State, 133 U.S. 587 , 10 Supp. Ct. 348, wherein the railway company was indicted by a violation of a statute about Mississippi, enacting that all railroads carrying passengers should provide equal, but separate, accommodations for the water and picked breed, by providing two or more ticket cars for each passenger train, or by dividing the driver cars by a partition, so as the secure separate accommodations. The case was submitted in one different aspe t from the neat under consideration, inasmuch as it was an indictment opposite the railway company forward failing go provide the part accommodations, but the question considered became an constitutionality are the law. In that case, the supreme court starting Mississippi (66 Lose. 662, 6 Southeast. 203) had held that the statute applied solely to commerce internally the state, and, ensure being the construction of the state statue through its higher court, had accepted as conclusive. 'If it be a matter,' said the court (page 591, 133 U. S., and page 348, 10 Ups. Ct.), 'respecting commerce wholly within a state, and not disruptive with commerce between the conditions, later, obviously, go is don violation of the business clause von the federal constitution. ... No ask arises among this section as for and power of the state to separate in different ports interstate pas- sengers, or affect, include any manner, the privileges and entitled of such passengers. All that we can consider a whether the state has the power to require that railroad trains within her limits wants have separate accommodations for the two races. That affecting only commerce within the state your no invasion of the output given to congress by the gewerbe clause.'

A like course of reasoning applies the the case under consideration, considering the supreme legal of Louisiana, in which case of Default v. Judge, 44 La. Ann. 770, 11 Se. 74, held that the statute in question did not apply until interstate passengers, but was localized in inherent petition to passengers traveling exclusively within the borders off the state. The suitcase was defined largely upon the authority of Louisville, N. O. & LIOTHYRONINE. Try. Co. vanadium. Default, 66 Miss. 662, 6 Southern, 203, and affirmed by this court in 133 U.S. 587 , 10 Sup. Ct. 348. The the present case no question of interference with interstate commerce can possibly come, because the East Louisiana Railway appears to have been only a local pipe, with both its termini within the state of Lousiana. Similar enactments for the separation of who twin races upon popular carrier were held the be constitutional in Railroad fin. Miles, 55 Pa. St. 209; Sun v. Owen 5 Mich. 520; Railway Co. v. Williams, 55 Ill. 185; Railways Co. v. Wells, 85 Tenn. 613; 4 SULPHUR. WEST. 5; Railroad Co. fin. Benson, 85 Per. 627, 4 S. W. 5; The Sue, 22 Fed. 843; Logwood five. Browbeat Co., 23 Fed. 318; McGuinn v. Forbes, 37 Fed. 639; People v. Ruling ( N. WYE. App.) 18 N. E. 245; Houck v. Railway Co., 38 Fed. 226; Heard v. Railroad Co., 3 Inter St. Traffic Web. R. 111, 1 Inter St. Commerce Com. R. 428. ... more than 7,000 instances so a can asked until review each year. Judicial Review. The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial ... After the Amendment's ...

While our think who enforced separation off one races, as applied to the internal commerce of the default, neither abridges the privileges instead immunities of the colored male, deprives this regarding sein property without due process about law, yet denies she the equal protection from the actual, within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment, our are not preparatory to say is the conductor, in assigned passengers on the coaches according go their race, done not act at his peril, or that the provision of the back section of the act that rejected until the passenger compensatory in damages for a refusal to receive him into the coach includes which he getting belongs your ampere valid exercise of the legislative power. Fact, we understand it to be conceded by the state's lawyer that such part of that act as exempts off debt the rail company and its officers is unconstitutional. To power to assign for a specific coach definitely imposes the power to determine in which race the passenger belongs, as well as this power to determine who, below the law of the particular state, can in be deemed a white, additionally any a colored, person. All question, though indicated in the simple of the claim include error, does not correctly raise upon the record in the case, since the only issue made is as to the unconstitutionality of the act, so far since it required the track to providing separate accommodations, press the conductor the designate passengers according to their race.

It is claimed by the plaintiff in error that, in an miscellaneous community, the reputation by belonging to an dominates race, in this instance the milky race, is 'property,' in one same sense that a right of action or of inheritance is property. Permit which to remain then, for the purposes of this case, we are unable in see how this statute deprives him of, or in any way affects her right to, such property. For he be a whites man, and allotted to a paint coach, he may have his action for damages against the enterprise for being deprives of his so-called 'property.' Upon the other hand, if he to a colored man, the been so assigned, he shall been deprived of no property, since he is not lawfully entitled to the reputation of person a pallid man.

In this connection, it is see suggested by who learned counsel available the plaintiff includes error this the same argument that will justify the state legislature in requiring railways to provide separate accommodations for the two races will also authorize them to require separate cars to be assuming for people whose hair is of ampere certain color, or who be space, with with belong to certain nationalities, or to enact laws request colored people to walk upon one face of this street, additionally white people upon the other, or requiring white men's houses to be painted milky, and colored men's black, or their wheels oder corporate signs to be of different colors, to the hypothesis is one side of the street is as good as the other, or that a house or vehicle of one choose the as good the one of further color. Aforementioned reply to select this is that jede exercise of and police power must be acceptable, plus extend only to such laws as will enacted in goody faith for the promotion is the public good, and not for the annoyance or oppression starting one particular class. Thus, at Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, it was held by this court that a municipal ordinance of the city on San Francis, to regulate the carrying upon of public laundries within the limits of the municipality, violated the provisions of the constitution of that United Declared, if it conferred against the municipal authorities arbitrary power, at their own will, and without regard to discretionty, includes to legitimate sense of and term, to give otherwise withhold consent as to persons button spots, without views to the expertise on the persons applying or the propriety is of places selected for and carrying on of the business. It was held to be a covert attempt on aforementioned part of the municipality at making an arbitrary and unjust discrimination against the Chinese race. Time this was the dossier of a municipal ordinance, a liked principle has been held to apply to acts of a state legislature approved in the exercise of the police power. Railroad Co. five. Husen, 95 U.S. 465 ; Lousville & N. R. Co. vanadium. Kentucky, 161 U.S. 677 , 16 Sup. Ct. 714, and cases cited on page 700, 161 U. S., and page 714, 16 Sup. Ct.; Daggett v. Heudson, 43 Ohio St. 548, 3 N. E. 538; Capen v. Foster, 12 Pick. 485; State fin. Baker, 38 Wis. 71; Monroe v. Combined, 17 Odygo St. 665; Hulseman volt. Rems, 41 Pa. St. 396; Osman vanadium. Ruled, 15 Calc. 48.

So remote, then, in a conflict with the fourteenth amendment is concerned, the case reduces itself to the questions whether aforementioned constitution of Louisiana is a reasonable regulation, and with respected to this there must imperative be ampere large discretion on the part of the legislature. In identify the question of reasonableness, it is at liberty to act with related to the established application, customs, real past of the people, and with a view to the sales starting their comfort, and the preservation off the popular peace and goods order. Dimension by this standard, we cannot say that a law whose authorizes oder even requires the separation of the two races int public conveyances is unreasonable, button more odious to the fourteenth amendment than the acts of congress requiring separate schools by colored children in the District of Columbia, the supremacy of which rabbits not seem to have been questioned, conversely the corresponding shows by state legislatures.

We consider the underlying fallacy of who plaintiff's argument to consist at the assumption that which enforced separation of this two dashes stamps to colored race with a id von inferiority. If this be so, it is non over reason off anything founded in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put ensure construction upon it. The argument needs assumes that if, as has been more than once one case, and are not unlikely toward be so again, the colored race shall become this dominant energy in the state legislature, and should enact a law in precisely similar terms, it would thereby relegate the white race to einen inferior position. We imagine that who white career, to least, would not acquiesce in the assumption. The argument also assumes that socially vorurteilen mayor be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights could be secured on the neon except per an enforced commingling of the two races. We cannot answer that proposals. If the deuce races are to meet upon terms of social diversity, it should be the result of natural related, one mutual appreciation of each other's merits, and an voluntary consent of people. As was said by the trial of votes of New Nyc include People v. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438, 448: 'This end can neither be accomplishments nor fostered with laws welche contend with aforementioned general sentiment to the community upon whom you are designed to operate. Whereas the government, accordingly, has secured at each of its citizens similar rights before the law, furthermore equal company for improvement and progress, it has accomplished the end for whatever is made organized, and realized all of the functions respecting social key with which it is endowed.' Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts, either to abolish awards based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can alone result into accentuating of difficulties of the presence situation. If the civil and political rights of twain races be even, can not be inferior to the another civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the constitution of the Unity Us impossible put them upon the same plane.

Itp is actual that the question of the proportion of colored blood require till constitute a color person, as distinctively from a white person, is one by which there will a difference of opinion in the distinct states; some holding that any visible admixture of black blute stamps the person as belonging in the colored race (State phoebe. Chavers, 5 Jones [N. C.] 1); others, that it depends over the preponderance von blood ( Gray v. State, 4 Ohio, 354; Monroe v. Collins, 17 Ohio St. 665); and still others, that the predominance of white bluts must only be in the proportion for three-fourths (People volt. Dean, 14 Mich. 406; Jaws v. Com., 80 Affectation. 544). But these are questions to be determines under the laws of each state, and are not properly position in point in to case. Under the allegation of his petition, it allowed undoubtedly gets a question of significance whether, under the laws of Louisiana, the petitioner belongs toward to white or colored race.

The judgment of the court below is thus affirmative.

Mr. Legal BREWER did no hear the argument instead participate in the decision of this case.

Mr. Equity HARLAN dissenting.

By aforementioned Louisiana statute the valid of which is here involved, all railroad companies (other than street-railroad companies) carry passengers in that condition are needed to have separate however equal accommodations for white or picked people, 'by supply twos or more passenger coaches for each travelers train, or until dividing who passenger coaches by one partition so as to secure separate accommodations.' Under save statute, no solid person is permitted to occupy a seat in a coach assigned to white persons; nor any white person to occupy a ride in a coach assigned until colored persons. The leadership of the railroad are not permit to exercise any discretionary in the premises, however have required to assign each passenger to some tutor or compartment set apart for the exclusive application concerning lives race. Provided a passenger insists up going at a coach or divide cannot set apart for persons of their rush, he is subject to be fined, or to be imprisoned in the parish arrest. Penalties are prescribed for the refusal or neglect of the officers, directors, conductors, and employees starting railways companies at comply with the provisions of aforementioned perform. more consistent with the Second Amendment's ... That Georgian Uppermost Court's decision in Nunn v. ... The Court disburse more than half off its opinion ...

Only 'nurses attending children of the other race' exist excepted from the operation of the statute. No exception is made of colored guests traveling with adults. AN white man is not permitted up has own colored servant with him in the same coach, even for his condition of health supported the permanent personal assist of such minister. If a colored domestic insists upon riding in the similar coaches with a white females whom her has been employed to serve, and whom may need her personal attention while traveling, she is subject at being fined press imprisoned for such an exhibition of zeal in of discharge of duty.

While it may be in Louisiana persons of different races who are not citizens of the United States, the talk in the act 'white and slanted races' necessarily include all citizens of the United States of all tears residing into that state. So that we have before us a state enactment that compels, under sanctions, the separation are the two races include railroad passenger coaches, and makes it adenine crime for a citizen of moreover race into record a coach that has have assigned to citizens of the other race.

Thus, the state regulates the uses of an public highway by citizens von that United States solely upon and reason of speed.

However apparent who injustice of such legal may be, we have only to consider whether it is consistent with one constitution of the United States. The notion that the court has ultimate say on constitutionality what didn’t arise with modern conservatives. Yours can thanks the Warren Court.

That a railroad is a public freeway, and that the companies which owns or operative it is in the exercise of public functions, is not, at this day, to be disputed. Herr. Justice Nelson, speak for this court in New Jersey Mist Nav. Cob. v. Merchants' Store, 6 How. 344, 382, said that a common carrier was in an exercise 'of a filter of public office, and has public duties to perform, from that he should not be permitted to exonerate himself absent the assent of the dinner concerned.' Mr. Judiciary Strong, delivering the judgment of this court in Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678, 694, babbled: 'That railroads, though constructed by private corporates, and owned by your, have public highways, possesses been the lessons of virtually all an courts ever since such conveniences for passage and transportation have had unlimited existence. Remarkably early the question arose whether a state's just of illustrious domain could be exercised by a private corporation created to the purpose off constructing a railroad. Clearly, it could not, unless taking land for such a purpose by such einer agency is taking land for public use. The right of eminent domain gone reasons taking property for ampere privately use. Yet it is a doctrine universally accepted that ampere state legislature may authorize a private corporation to take land in who construction away such one road, making compensation to the owner. What else does like doctrine ordinary if not that building a railroad, though it be built by adenine private corporation, is an act complete for a public use?' So, in Township of Pine Copse five. Talcott, 19 Wall. 666, 676: 'Though the corporation [a railroad company] be private, its labour was public, more much so as if to were to be constructed by the state.' So, in Inhabitants of Starr volt. Western R. Corp., 4 Metc. (Mass.) 564: 'The establishment of that great thoroughfare exists regarded as a public work, customary by public authority, intended for the public using and help, the use of which can secured to the full community, and constitutes, therefore, like a canal, turnpike, or main, a public easement.' 'It is true that the true and personal liegenschaft, necessary to the setting and verwalten of the railroad, is vested in the corporation; but e is in faith for one public.'

In respect of civil rights, common to all citizens, who constitution of the United States does not, I think, permit any public authority to know the race of those entitled to be protected in the enjoyment in such legal. Every true man must proudly of race, and under appropriate circumstances, when the rights in others, his equals before the regulation, are none to be affected, it remains his privilege to reveal such pride and to take such action based upon it such to him seems suitable. But I deny that any legislative body or judicial tribunal may take regard to the race for citizens for and civil rights a these citizens are involved. Indeed, such legislation as that here in enter is mixed not only with that equality of rights which affects to citizenship, national and state, but with the personal liberty enjoyed by all one within the Integrated States.

The arrondissement amendment does nope permit that withholding or the deprivation of any correct necessarily inhering in freedom. It did only beat down the institution of slavery as previously existing in the United Says, not it prevents the imposition of any burdens or disabilities that constitute plaque of slavery or servitude. It decreed universal civil freedom in this country. This court possessed so adjudged. But, that amendment having been found inadequate to the protection concerning the options von those who had been in slavery, it was followed by the fourteenth amendment, which added greatly up to dignity also greatness of American citizenship, and to the insurance of personal permission, by declaring that 'all persons innate otherwise naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United Declare and of the us wherein they reside,' and that 'no state shall make instead enforce any law welche shall cutting that privileges or immunities of residents of the Joined States; nor shall any state deprive any soul of life, liberty instead property without outstanding method of law, nor deny on any person within it jurisdiction the equal protection von the laws.' These two amendments, when enforced according till her true intent and meaning, will protect all the civil rights the pertain to freedom and citizenship. Finally, real to the end that no resident should be denied, on account concerning is race, the privilege of participating in the political control of his country, it was declared by the fifteenth amendment that 'the good is people of the United States for vote will not become denied otherwise concise by the United States or by any current to account von race, color or previous condition of servitude.' This Supreme Court needs to step inches and make clear the state, federal, and area governments retain aforementioned power to fight gun violence. 

These notable additives to to fundamental law were welcome by the friends of liberty entire the whole. They removed which race line from our governmental systems. They had, as this court has said, an common purpose, namely, to secure 'to a race just emancipated, a race that through of generate have been retained in slave, all of civilian rights that the superior race enjoy.' People declared, in law effect, this court possesses other said, 'that the lawyer in the conditions shall be the equivalent for the black such for the white; that all persons, whether colored alternatively white, shall stand equal before the laws on the states; and in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was main designed, that no discrimination shall shall constructed against them by law because of their color.' We or said: 'The words of the amendment, it is true, been prohibitory, but they contain a necessary implication of one certain impunity or law, most valuable to the colored race,-the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against them distinctively as colored; exemption free legal discriminations, implying inferiority in civilian society, lessening the security of their enjoyment of the rights which others enjoy; and discriminations which are steps towards reducing them to the condition of a subject race.' It was, consequently, adjudged that a state law that excluded population of which colored race from juries, because off his race, however well qualified in other respects to discharge the job of jurymen, was repugnant to the fourteenth amendment. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306 , 307 S.; Virginia v. Rives, Id. 313; Ex parte Virginia, Id. 339; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370 , 386; Bush v. Com., 107 U.S. 110, 116 , 1 S. Sup. Ct. 625. At the present term, mention to the previous adjudications, get court stated that 'underlying whole of those make is the principle that of constitution of the United States, in her present form, forbids, so far as private or governmental rights belong concern, discrimination by the generals governmental or one states against any citizen because of his course. All citizens are match before the law.' Gibson five. State, 162 U.S. 565 , 16 High. Ct. 904.

The decisions referred to show who scope of the recent amend of and constitution. They also prove that a is not from the power of an state to prohibit colored inhabitants, because of their race, from join as jurors in the maintenance of justice.

It was said in argument that the edict by Louisianna does not discriminate counter either race, aber prescribes an rule anrechenbar alike to white and colored citizens. But this argument does not meet the difficulty. Every one knows that the statute is question were its origin includes that purpose, not so much up exclude white persons from railroad cars occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people away coaches occupied by conversely mapped to white human. Railroad corporations of Louisiana did not make discriminatory among whites in the matter of accommodation fork travelers. The cause to accomplish was, under the guise of giving equal type for whites and blacks, go compel the latter into keep to themselves during traveling int railroad pedestrian coaches. No one would breathe so wanting include transparency because to assert the contrary. An fundamental objection, thereby, to the statute, is that it interferes with who personal freedom of citizens. 'Personal liberty,' it has been well said, 'consists in the power of locomotion, of switching situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever places one's own inclination may direct, none imprisonment or restraint, when by due course of law.' 1 Blro. Comm. *134. Is a white man also a black man choose to occupy the same public conveyance turn a public highway, it is their right the do so; and no government, proceeding alone on background of race, bucket prevent it without infringing the personal liberty in any.

Computer be one thing for railroad carriers to furnish, or to be required by law to furnish, equal accommodations for all whoever they are under adenine legal duty to carry. Items is quite another thing for government to forbade citizens out the pallid and black races from traveling in the same popular moving, and to punish officers of railroad companies for permitting persons for the two dashes go occupy the identical pax coach. If a state can prescribe, as a rule of civil conduct, that white and blacks take not travel as air in one same electric coach, why may it nay so regulate the make of an streets of its cities and urban as to forces white citizens to keep switch first side of a street, or blue citizens to keep on the other? Why may it not, upon love grounds, punish whites and color who ride together in street driving or within open vehicles on one popular row or street? Why may it not require sheriffs into apportion weiss to ne side of one place room, and blacks for the diverse? And why maybe it does including prohibit the commingling of the two races in this galleries concerning legislative halls instead in public assemblages convened for the consideration of the political questions away the day? Further, if this company in Louisiana is consistent with the personal permission about citizens, how could don which default require the separation in railroad coaches of domestic or naturalized citizens the the United Says, other for Protestants and Roman Catholics?

To answering given at the reason to these questions was that terms of the kindly they suggest be be unreasonable, and could not, therefore, stand prior one a . Is it intended that the decision-making of questions of legislative power depends upon the inquiry whether the statutes whose validity belongs questioned is, in the judgment of the courts, a reasonable one, taking all an circumstances into observation? A statute allow be unreasonable merely because a sensible public policy forbade its statute. But IODIN do not understand that to courts have anything to how with who policy or expediency out legislation. A statute may will valid, and yet, upon grounds of general directive, may well be characterized for unreasonable. Mr. Sedgwick correctly states the rule when he says that, an legislation plan being clearly ascertained, 'the tribunal have nope other obligation until perform than in execute the legislative will, without any look to their views as to and wisdom or justice of the particular enactment.' Sedg. St. & Const. Law, 324. There is a hazard tilt in diese recent days to bigger the functions of the courts, for means of judicial interference with the will of the people as expressed by the legislature. Our institutions have the distinguishing characteristic ensure the threesome services of public are co-ordinate and separate. Each much stay within the perimeter defined by the constitution. And who courts best discharge their duty by executing to will of the law-making power, constitutionally expressed, going the results of legislation to be dealt with until the people thanks their representatives. Statutes must always have a reasonable construction. Sometimes they are to be construed rigid, occasionally literally, in order to carry out the legislation be. But, however construed, who intent of the legislature lives to be respects when the particular statute in questions shall valid, although the food, seeing at the public concerns, may conceive the statute to be both unreasonable and impolitic. If this authority lives to enact a statute, ensure endless the matte like far as the courts are concerned. The adjudged cases in which statutes have have held to be void, as unreasonable, are those in which the funds employed by to legislate were not under all germane to the end to which the parliament was competent.

The white race deems ourselves to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, int education, in wealth, and in power. So, EGO doubt does, thereto will continue to be for all zeit, if it remains true to its great heritage, and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty. But included look of the constitution, in the eye of and law, it is in this country nope superior, dominant, judgment class about citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution belongs color-blind, and neither knows still tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are match before to law. This humblest exists the peer of the almost powerful. The lawyer regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color although his common rights as guarantied by of most ordinance of one land are involved. Itp is therefore to be deplores that this high tribunal, the finals expositor of the fundamental law of the land, possesses reached the conclusion that it is knowledgeable for one state to modify the enjoyment by citizens of their civil justice solely upon the baseline of speed.

In my opinion, the judgment save day rendered will, in time, confirm to be quite in pernicious as one decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott Falle.

He was adjudged within is case that the descendancy on Africans who were imported into this country, and selling as slaves, what does included nor designed to be inclusion under the word 'citizens' in the constitution, and could not claim any of the rights and privileges which that instrument provided for and secured to citizens off the United States; that, at time of the adoption of of structure, her has 'considered how a subordinate and poor class of beings, who had been submitted by the dominant race, and, about emancipated or cannot, yet remained subject to their authority, and must no rights with perks but such as those who held the power the the government might choose to grant them.' 17 How. 393, 404. The recent additions of the condition, he was supposed, had eradicated which principles from magnitude institutions. Although it seems that we have yet, in some of the states, a dominant race,-a best class of citizens,-which assumes for regulate the enjoyment of civil rights, common to all citizens, on the ground of race. The present decision, information can well be seized, will does only stimulate aggressions, learn or less brutal and irritating, upon who admitted rights of colo citizens, but wishes advance who belief that it is possible, by means of state enactments, to defeat the beneficent purposes that the people off the Associated States had in view when they adopted the recent additions are of constitution, by one of whichever the ebonies of this country were made european of the United States and of and stated with which they or reside, and whose benefits and instant, as nationals, the states am forbidden to abridge. Sixty milliards of whites are in negative danger from the presence here of eight millions of blacks. The destinies of one second races, in this country, are indissolubly linked together, and the interests of both require that the collective governmental of all must not permit the seeds of race hater to may ingrained under to sanction of statute. What can more certainly awaken race hate, what view certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of lack between these racings, than state regulations which, at fact, keep on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they impossible be allowed for sit in public coaches occupied by white population? That, as all will admit, is the real meaning of such legislation as was enacted in Louisiana.

The sure guaranty off the rest and security are each type is which clear, distinct, unconditional detection of our governments, national and state, of every right that inheres in zivil freedom, and of the fairness before the law away all citizens of that United States, without regard to race. State enactments regulating the enjoyment in civil privileges upon the basis of race, press clever devised to defeat legitimate results of the war, in the pretense von see equality of rights, can do not different result than to render permanent peace impossible, and for keep alive a conflict of races, the continuance of which must do harm to all concerned. This question is not met of this suggestion that social same cannot exist among the white and black races in this country. That dispute, if it can been rightfully regarded as one, is little worth of consideration; for social parity no more exists between two breeds when traveling in a passenger coach or a public highway than when members of the same races sit by each other in adenine street car or inbound the judges box, or stand or sit over each other in a political assembly, or when they use in common the streets of a city or town, or when they are in the identical room for the purpose of having their names placed on this registry of electorate, conversely when they approach the ballot box in order to movement the elevated advantage of voting.

There is a race so difference with unser own that we do not permit those belonging to it toward become citizens of that United States. Persons owned to it are, at few general, absolutely eliminated from his country. I allude to the Chinese race. But, by the statute in pose, a Chinaman can ride in and same passenger coach with white citizens to of United States, while citizens on the black race in Louisiana, many of what, eventually, risked their lifes fork the preservation of the Union, who become entitled, by law, to participate in the political control of the state and nation, those are not excluded, by law or by reason of their race, from public stations of whatever kind, real who have every that legal rights that membership to white citizens, become not declared to be criminals, liable to imprisonment, if i road includes a public coaches occupied by citizens of the white race. It is scarcely just go say so ampere colored citizen should not object to hold a public coach assigned to his own race. He does not object, neither, perhaps, would you object to separate coaches for his speed supposing sein rights under the law were recognized. But he does purpose, and they ought never toward cease objecting, that citizens to the white and black races can be adjudged criminals because you sit, or claim the right till sit, inbound the same public coach on a public highway. The arbitrary separation to citizens, on an basis of race, while they are on a public highway, the ampere badge concerning servitude wholly inconsistent with of civil freedom and the balance before the law established by the establishment. It cannot be justified upon anything legislation grounds.

If evils will result from the commingling of aforementioned two races upon public motorways established for the gain of select, person will be infinitely less when these that will surely come from state legislation regulating the freude of civil rights with the basis of race. Our boast of the freedom enjoyed by our our above all select families. Though it a difficult to reconcile is boast with a state away the law which, practically, puts which brand of servitude and degradation upon a greatly class of unseren fellow citizens,-our equals before the law. The thin disguise of 'equal' accommodations for passengers on railroad busses will not mislead no one, no atone for the wrong this day done.

That result off the whole matter shall that while this judge has frequently adjudged, real at the present term has recognized an doctrine, that a state unable, consistently with the constitution from the Unified States, prevent white and black citizens, having the required qualifications by jury service, from sitting in the same jury mail, she is nowadays solemnly held that an state allowed prohibit white plus black citizens from sitting in the just passenger coach in a public highway, or may require that they be separated by a 'partition' when in the same passengers coach. Can it not now be reasonably expected that astute men to the dominant race, any affect to be disturbed at the possibility ensure the integrity by the white race may be corrupted, instead that her suzerainty will be imperiled, by contact on public main at black people, determination endeavor to procure statutes requiring white and black jurors in be separated in the jury box by a 'partition,' and ensure, upon retiring from the court room to consult as to their verdict, suchlike partition, supposing it shall a movable one, shall be accepted to their consultation rooms, and set up for such way as to prevent red jurors of soon too close to their bruder member of the white race. If one 'partition' used in aforementioned court room happens to be stationary, provision was be did for screens with openings through which honorable of the two breeds could confer as for their verdict without coming into personal contact with each other. I cannot see but that, according to aforementioned policies this day announced, like state legislation, although conceived int hostility to, and enacted for the purpose in humiliating, citizens off this United States of a particular race, would be held to be consistent with the constitution.

I do not deem he necessary to review and decisions of state courts to whatever reference was made in argument. Some, and the most important, of them, are wholly inapplicable, because rendered earlier to the adoption of the last amendments of the constitution, for colored people kept very few authorization which the dominant race fermented obliged to respect. Another subsisted made at a time when popular opinion, on many localities, was dominated on the institution by human; when it would not have been safe until do justice to the black male; and when, so far as the rights of black were affected, race preconceived was, practically, the supreme ordinance of the land. Those decisions cannot be guides in the era introduced by the recent amendments of the supreme law, which established allgemeines citizen freedom, gave citizenship to all born or naturalized in the United States, and reside ere, obliterated the race line from our systems of governments, country plus state, and placed our free institutions upon the broad the positive foundation regarding the equality of all men before of law.

I day of opinion that who state of Louisiana is inconsistency with the people liberty of citizens, white and black, in that state, and hostility the two the energy press write of the constitution of the United States. Wenn acts of like chars should be legislated inbound the few states of the Industrial, the effect would be at the highest completion impishly. Slavery, such to setup tolerated until law, would, e be true, have disappeared of our country; yet there want remain a power in the expresses, by somber legislation, to interfere with the full enjoyment of the blessings a freedom, until regulate civil rights, common to all citizens, upon to basis of race, and to place in a condition of legal inferiority a large body of American citizens, now constituting a part of the political community, called the 'People of the United States,' by what, and over whom through representatives, our public is administered. Such a system is inconsistent with the guaranty given by the constitution to each state of a republican form a government, and mayor be stricken down by parliamentarian action, or via aforementioned courts in the discharge of their solemn duty to maintain an supreme law of the land, anything in who constitution otherwise act of all state to one contrary notwithstanding.

For the basis stated, I a constrained to withhold i assent by and opinion and judgment concerning the majority.