Show STATES EIGHTS judicially SUSTAINED A DECISION rendered by the supreme court of tile tiie united states stater on en she of january Is a triumph for the champions of rights and a blow against the advocates of federal Supreme supremacy oy over local authority thor tho rity ty the case was that of the united states against it G harris and turned on the question of the constitutionality of section of the revised statutes which reads follows if two or more moie persons persona in any state or territory conspire or go in disguise dle dis gulbe guise on the highway or on the premises of another for the purpose of depriving either dir directly acty or indirectly any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities muni ties under the laws or for the purpose of preventing and hindering the constituted authorities of any state or territory from giving or securing to all persons within buell bueil state or territory the equal protection of the laws each of buch such persons shail shall be punished by a fine or of not le lees lebs is than norr nor more than thail I 1 or by imarie imprisonment on menh ment with or without hard labor not less lebs than six eix months nor more than six yearn or by both such alne line and imprisonment 11 1 1 in tiie tile case are nrc these in the year 1877 four olti citizens zens ol oi Bup supposed posed to be colored men although not so 0 described in the record were arrested by one tucker a deputy sheri fl on warrants issued by a justice of the penca peace and held heid to answer certain criminal charges ch argea the nature mature of which is not set bet forth while in the custody of the sherifa these thesa four prisoners were attacked by an armed body of men of whom the tho defendant harris was onoan djao dilo severely beaten wounded and mal treated that P M wells of their number died from the effects of his Ill injuries urles an indictment was found by the grand jury against harris and his bis associates of the attacking party under the above section charging them with consa conspiracy raey racy to deprive the four prisoners of the right to due and equal protection of the laws ot of tennessee and of their right to be protected from violence while under arrest the defendants demurred to the indictment on the grounds ground ss first that offenses created dy IDY that section are not constitutionally tio nally within the jurisdiction of the courts of the united but are cog cognizable nimble by the tha state tribunals only and second that eald section in so far as it creates and end imposes penalties is in violation odthe of the federal constitution and an infringement of the rights of the several states and of the people thereof cot cof the judges of the circuit court before whom the case was tried found themselves unable to agree as to the constitutionality of the section of the revised statutes above referred toy tog to and certified the question to the united states su bu preme court for a decision justice woods delivered the opinion lo 10 ua taking the ground that every valid act of cf congress must find in the thu constitution bome some warrant for its passage then proceeding to cite four paragraphs of that instrument which aro are the tha only ones that can be supposed to have any reference whatever to tho the subject namely section two of article articie ar ticie four and the thirteenth fourteenth and I 1 if amendments the iest lust named ho he clearly shows hai has no application pil catlon cation because it simply relates to the voting rights of citizens of the united states and concerning the fourteenth amendment ho he argues that hat it 16 has haa reference to state action exclusively and not to any action of private individuals the language an ortho amendment does not leave this subject in doubt when the state has been guilty of no violation of its provisioned pro provi blam blom when it has not made mie or forced any laws abridging the privileges or immunities of eitl citi citizens zens of the united State states 9 when no one of its departments has de prided ady ROY person of life liberty or proper property towi without thou t due process of law 3 orden or denied lod led to any person within jurisdiction is equal protection of the blaive laive when on the the contrary the laws ot of a state as enacted by its legislative I 1 construed by its judicial catered by its executive departments recognize and protect tle too rights of all ai cerp amendment imposes no duty and confers no power on the learned judge goes goeb on to compare section with the fourteenth amendment amendments and proves that while the latter only applies to states the former applies tu private persons person ss who no matter how well the state tate may have performed its duty are made liable to punishment for conspiring to 0 o deprive anyone of equal protection of the laws enacted by th the state he reasons them then fore that as the section of the revised statutes under consideration Is directed exclusively against the action of private persons without reference to the laws lawe of uhe the state or their administration by officers of the state it is clear it is iano not war ranted by any clause mause in the fourteenth amendment ta the constitution the thirteenth amendment Is next and dispo disposed sed ted of as relating only to slavery and involuntary not broad enough to cover the section of the revised statutes under consideration the second article of section four of the constitution the justice justlee maintains refers only to stata state action and not to the doings of individuals etwas it was never supposed that it conferred on en Congre congress 83 power to enact a law which would punish private citizens for an invasion of rights of his fel low jow citizens con conferred ferneo ferreO by the state of which they were both reil residents denta dents the deci decision then is that section of the revised statutes of the united states is unconstitutional its enactment was beyond the powers of corl cori congress gress u end nd that it is therefore void considering that t the he case on the 1 was fully argued by the solicitor general and that no one ona appeared for the defendant nor for or the state of Tenn tennessee lee mee it Js is a great triumph for the doctrine and a mark of fairness and justice on the part of the supreme bench benneh composed chiefly of republicans the object in passing declared invalid was to enable the federal authorities in the southern states to take tahe lawless white men accused of crimes against the colored people out of the hands of the local author authorities lugs lues and try them and punish them by the federal courts the principle established by this important decision is that such con as aa the federal power is authorized zed to exercise for the main ten tenancy anco ance of the civil rights of citizens must be exerted upon the states rather than upon individuals un lesa less a state for example infringes some of tho the prohibitions against state action contained in the constitution thero there is no occasion ion lon for fon northe forthe the interference of the general government to preserve the personal rights intended to be guaranteed by those thom prohibitions this is straight democratic doc trine and accords with the predie alons of its exponents that this civil rights legislations legislation enacted for the special benefit of the colored race would be found on a fair test to bo in violation of tha supreme law of the land Sect hect section lort lori of there statutes of the united states slates Is dead and states stated nights rights remain intact |