RIGHTS, Civil. One of the clearest defin him's of an authoritative character declares: "Civil rights are those which appertain to zenshipand which may be enforced or redressed by a civil action. Also a term applied to certain rights secured to all citizens of the United States by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Azneedments of the Federal Constitution, and by congressional action thereunder, and by State legislation? Bouvier says 'these consist of acquiring property, of exercising the paternal and marital powers, and the like? Civil right* in full are, extended in this country to, aliens as well as to citizens. All residents alike enjoy such powers which can only be denied under a sentence of civil death. Civil rights have been divided Into absolute and relative rights. Absolute rights are those generally considered as inherent to humanity.' Of- suck is the right of personal security permitting of the individual's enjoyment, legally and uninterruptedly, of the use of his limbs, his body, his health and his reputa tion; the right of his personal liberty; consisting of the power of locomotion, of changlog situation, or betaking one's person to other places accord ing to inclination and under no outside or restraint, except by due pones of law. Under the division absolute rights is placed the right of property, allowing the free use, enjoy ment, and disposal, all his legally acquired gunitions, wacontrolled and undiminished, sub feet alone to the laws of the country. Relative• civil rights include those which subsist between the people and the government,, such as the peoples' right to .protection at • the hands of the government; the right of allegiance which is due to the (government at the hands of the people; the rights of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, master and serv ant, reciprocally. Belonging to such relative civil rights would appear to' be those which: Blackstone defines as follows: "The rights of persons that are commanded to be observed by the municipal law are of two sorts: first, such as are due from every citizen which are usually called civil duties, and, secondly, such as be long to him, which is the more popular accepta tion of rights ,or Ara? As to precedence of civil rights Bouvier says: The idea of rights is co-existent with that of authority (or government); are inherent in man; but if we government a coherent system of laws by w a State is ruled and if we understand by State a sovereign society with distinct authority to make and execute laws, then rights precede gm,.
ernment, or the establishment of States. . . An accepted judicial decision says, in distin guishing civil from natural rights: "13y civil rights, I understand those rights which the municipal law will enforce, at the instance of private individuals, for the purpose of securing to them the enjoyment of their means of happi ness. They are distinguished from natural rights, which would exist if there were no municipal law, some of which are abrogated by municipal law, while others lie outside of its scope and still others are enforcible under It as civil law.' Johnson, distinguishing civil from political rights gives the following definition: "A right accorded to every member of a dis tinct community or nation,' whereas, a political right is a 'right exercisable in the administra tion of government,' such as rights of voting on elections. ((Civil rights . . . have no rela tion to the establishment, support, or manage ment of the government," Bouvier says. Cer tain apparently inherent rights of the citizens may not be actual rights so far as the laws of the country are concerned. Thus some tights, termed often rights of privacy, such as "one's right to. one's face,' the prohibition of holding of a private citizen's character up to ridicule, etc., found no place in court. The former case seems to make legal conditions clear. Until quite recent legislation no redress was avail able in repeated attempts to hinder the use of portraits of living persons for use in adver. tising, etc., without that person's consent. But under present legislation the usage of a living person's lineaments without obtained permis sion of the "owner' is illegal and the civil right of the citizen to his own likeness now prevail% whereas the 'holding up to ridicule' of the private person's character (except upon proof of malicious intent, libel, etc.), fads still to find a %remedy' in the courts.