in
a proper manner has a right to be received. He shows conclusively
that an inn-keeper is a sort of public servant; that he is in the
exercise of a _quasi_ public employment, that he is given special
privileges, and charged with duties of a public character.
As to theatres, I think his argument most happy. It is this:
Theatres are licensed by law. The authority to maintain them comes
from the public. The colored race being a part of the public,
representing the power granting the license, why should the colored
people license a manager to open his doors to the white man and
shut them in the face of the black man? Why should they be compelled
to license that which they are not permitted to enjoy? Justice
Harlan shows that Congress has the power to prevent discrimination
on account of race or color on railways, at inns, and in places of
public amusements, and has this power under the Thirteenth
Amendment.
In discussing the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Harlan points out
that a prohibition upon a State is not a power in Congress or the
National Government, but is simply a denial of power to the State;
that such was the Constitution before the Fourteenth Amendment.
He shows, however, that the Fourteenth Amendment presents the first
instance in our history of the investiture of Congress with
affirmative power by legislation to enforce an express prohibition
upon the States. This is an important point. It is stated with
great clearness, and defended with great force. He shows that the
first clause of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is
of a distinctly affirmative character, and that Congress would have
had the power to legislate directly as to that section simply by
implication, but that as to that as well as the express prohibitions
upon the States, express power to legislate was given.
There is one other point made by Justice Harlan which transfixes
as with a spear the decision of the Court. It is this: As soon
as the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were adopted the colored
citizen was entitled to the protection of section two, article
four, namely: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to
all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States."
Now, suppose a colored citizen of Mississippi moves to Tennessee.
Then, under the section last quoted, he would immediately become
invested with all the privileges and immunities of a white citizen
of Tennessee. Although
|