Print

16 Equal Protection prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. . . . In this connection it is proper to state that civil rights, such as are guaranteed by the constitution against state aggression, cannot be impaired by the wrongful acts of individuals, unsupported by state authority in the shape of laws, customs, or judicial or executive pro- ceedings. The wrongful act of an individual, unsupported by any such authority, is simply a private wrong,10 or a crime of that individual an invasion of the rights of the injured party, it is true, whether they affect his person, his property, or his reputation but if not sanctioned in some way by the state, or not done under state authority, his rights remain in full force, and may presumably be vindicated by resort to the laws of the state for redress. . . . And the remedy to be provided must necessarily be predicated upon that wrong. It must assume that in the cases provided for, the evil or wrong actually committed rests upon some state law or state authority for its excuse and perpetration. . . . We have also discussed the validity of the law in reference to cases arising in the states only and not in reference to cases arising in the territories or the District of Columbia, which are subject to the plenary legislation of congress in every branch of municipal regula- tion. Whether the law would be a valid one as applied to the terri- tories and the district is not a question for consideration in the cases before us they all being cases arising within the limits of states. And whether congress, in the exercise of its power to regulate commerce among the several states, might or might not pass a law regulating rights in public conveyances passing from one state to another, is also a question which is not now before us, as the sections in ques- tion are not conceived in any such view. But the power of congress to adopt direct and primary, as distinguished from corrective, legis- lation on the subject in hand, is sought, in the second place, from the thirteenth amendment, which abolishes slavery.11 This amendment declares ‘that neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly con- victed, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to 10 Justice Bradley reiterates that the wrongs committed in this case, for example not allowing a person onto a railroad or into an inn, are wrongs committed by individuals, what he calls “private wrongs.” They are not wrongs committed by the government. 11 The challengers also argue that the wrongs committed against them on the basis of race imposed upon them badges of servitude. They rely on the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude.