The Civil Rights Cases furnish the most striking instance of the difference between 'the interpretation placed upon the 14th Amendment by those who framed it, and that of the court whose province it is to construe its meaning and determine its powers and limitations. These cases, which were decided in 1883, arose through certain alleged violations of the first and second sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It will be recalled that this act declared all persops entitled to the equal accommodations of hotels, theatres and public conveyances. It also pro vided certain penalties for the denial of these privileges "to any citizens, except for reasons by law applicable to citizens of any race and color." The court held that these two sections of the act were unconstitutional and void. They were held to be "direct and primary. as dis tinguished from corrective, legislation.'' and as such constituted an invasion of the domain of State control of its purely domestic affairs. The court placed upon the amendment the import ant and far-reaching construction that it oper ated es an Inhibition upon the States alone, and not tipon their CititeDS. III the words of Mr. Justice Bradley: °Civil rights, such as are guaranteed by the Constitution against State aggression,.cannot be impaired by the wrongful acts of individuals unsupported by State au thority.° Two other important interpretations of the 14th Amendment are that °equal° does not necessarily mean °identical,' as applied to rights and privileges, and that the amendment created no new °privileges or immunities.° Under the former have been upheld State laws which provided separate schools for the two races, and also those requiring railroads to provide °separate but equal' accommodations. tinder the latter of these interpretations the court has held that women, as citizens of the United States, have no privileges to which citi zens were not entitled before the amendment.
Hence a State statute prohibiting women from voting or practising law was not an abridgment of the privileges of citizens within the purview of the amendment. If considered from the narrow viewpoint of a mere attempt to endow one race with privileges and immunities enjoyed by an other, the interpretation of the 14th Amendment has fallen short of the hopes and expectations of many of its advocates. The first section is now all of real significance that remains of the amendment. Held within its proper bounds, and wisely interpreted as it has been, this wears no longer the aspect of an instrument in derogation of the dignity of the States. As an effort to render more secure to all persons life, liberty and property, it stands forth in some measure worthy of rank with the 10 great amendments which constitute the American Bill of Rights.
Of the 15th Amendment it may be said as Mr. Justice Miller said of the 13th: °Its two short sections seem hardly to admit of con struction" Of itself it confers suffrage upon no one. Save upon the grounds of race, color and previous condition of servitude, it does not diminish the right of the State to regulate the suffrage of its citizens. The power to impose any other qualification remains as it was before 1870. This has been held clearly enough in the few cases involving the right of suffrage abridgment thus far presented to the court. For one section of the country at least, harassed by problems peculiar to itself, it is well that this iS so. See CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES •, also CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.
Bibliography.— Ames, H. V. A., 'Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United States during the First Century of Its His tory> in American Historical Association's Annual Report II (1896); Borgeaud, C., 'Adoption and Amendment of Constitutions in Europe and America' (Hazen, C. D., trans. 1895).