Undoubtedly, if Congress could legislate on the subject at all, its legislation, by the act of 1st March, 1875, was within the principles thus announced. The penalty denounced by the statute is incurred by denying to any citizen “the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges” enumerated in the first section, and it is wholly immaterial whether the citizen whose rights are denied him belongs to one race or class or another, or is of one complexion or another. And again, the penalty follows every denial of the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges, except and unless the denial was “_for reasons by law_ applicable to citizens of every race and color, and regardless of any previous condition of servitude.” _Mr. William Y. C. Humes_ and _Mr. David Posten_ for the Memphis and Charleston Railroad Co., defendants in error. THE DECISION OF THE COURT. MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court. After stating the facts in the above language, he continued: It is obvious that the primary and important question in all the cases is the constitutionality of the law; for if the law is unconstitutional, none of the prosecutions can stand. The sections of the law referred to provide as follows: “SEC. 1. That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall 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 and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.