Race Distinctions in American LawStephenson, Gilbert Thomas
History
Race Distinctions in American Law
Stephenson, Gilbert Thomas
African Americans -- Politics and government; Law -- United States -- History; United States -- Race relations
Constitution, until that purpose was supposed to be accomplished, as far
as constitutional law can accomplish it.” Without further citation of
authorities, it may be assumed that the primary purpose of Congress in
drafting the Fourteenth Amendment was to secure and protect the rights
and privileges of Negroes.
The next Federal legislation on the subject was the Civil Rights
Bill[224] of 1875, which declared that all persons within the
jurisdiction of the United States should be entitled to the full and
equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and
privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theatres and
other places of public amusement, subject only to the conditions
established by law and applicable alike to citizens of every race and
color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude. The penalty
for the violation of this law was the forfeiture of five hundred dollars
to the person aggrieved and a fine of not less than five hundred dollars
nor more than one thousand dollars or imprisonment not less than three
months nor more than one year. The District and Circuit Courts of the
United States were given exclusive jurisdiction of offences against this
statute. District attorneys, marshals, and deputy marshals of the United
States, and commissioners appointed by the Federal courts were
authorized to proceed against those violating the provisions of the act.
The years between 1865 and 1875 had witnessed changes in the attitude of
Congress toward the civil rights of Negroes. The Bill of 1866 was
general in its terms, yet Congress did not feel secure till the
Fourteenth Amendment had been passed to give validity, in a sense, to
what had already been done. Now in 1875 Congress passed a bill which far
surpassed in scope anything that had theretofore been undertaken. It is
surprising that the test case of its constitutionality did not reach the
court of last resort before 1883. During the year of its passage, 1875,
doubt was thrown upon its validity by Judge Dick in charging the grand
jury of the Federal Circuit Court of North Carolina,[225] who said, in
part: “Every man has a natural and inherent right of selecting his own
associates, and this natural right cannot be properly regulated by
legislative action, but must always be under the control of the
individual taste or inclination.” The same year, Judge Emmons, of the
Circuit Court in Tennessee,[226] ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment
applied to State and not individual action, and that the Federal
government could not require individual innkeepers, theatre managers,
etc., to entertain Negroes.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account