The last act of the series was that of March 1, 1875, which was pre-eminently known as the "Civil Rights Act" and con sisted of five sections. Section 1 provided that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States should be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommo dations, etc., of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theatres, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the condi tions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to all citizens of whatever race or color, regardless of any previous con dition of servitude. Section 2 provided for the punishment of any person who should violate the foregoing section, both criminal ly and by a suit for a penalty. Section it gave jurisdiction to the federal courts ex clusively of all offenses• against the act, and of suits for a penalty. Section 4 provided that no person should be excluded from service as grand or petit juror in any court of the United States or any state, on ac count of race, color or previous condition of servitude. Section 5 gave to the Su preme Court a right of review of all cases arising under the act.
Section 4 was declared constitutional in Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 25 L. Ed, 676. Sections 1 and 2 were held unconstitu tional and void in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 3 Sup. Ct. 18, 27 L. Ed. 835, as not being authorized by either the 13th or 14th Amendments. And having been so de clared unconstitutional, they were not sepa rable as to their operation in such places as are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government and the statute was therefore unconstitutional in its entirety ; Butts v. Merchants & Miners Transp. Co., 230 U. S. 126, 33 Sup. Ct. 964, 57 L. Ed. 1422; The Trade Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, 25 L. Ed. 550.
The 13th Amendment denounces a status or condition irrespective of the manner or authority by which it is created. The pro hibitions of the 14th and 15th Amendments are largely upon the acts of the states ; but the 13th Amendment names no party or au thority, but simply forbids slavery and in voluntary servitude and grants to Congress power to enforce this prohibition by ap propriate legislation ; Clyatt v. U. S., 197 U. S. 207, 25 Sup. Ct. 429, 49 L. Ed. 726. Such legislation may be primary and direct in its character ; id.
In the Civil Rights Cases the court held that although the constitution and statutes of a state may not be repugnant to the 13th Amendment, Congress, by legislation of a di rect and primary character, may, in order to enforce the amendment, reach and punish individuals whose acts are in hostility to rights and privileges derived from and se cured by or dependent upon that amend ment ; Clyatt v. U. S., 197 U. S. 207, 25 Sup. Ct. 429, 49 L. Ed. 726. The power, duty and responsibility to enforce the rights of citi zens under any of the constitutional amend ments rests with the state and not with the United States government ; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 26 L. Ed. 567. But in Hodges v. U. S., 203 U. S. 1, 27 Sup. Ct. 6, 51 L. Ed. 65, the 13th Amendment was held not to empower Congress to protect against individ ual interference (where a conspiracy was alleged to exclude negroes from making contracts to labor).
Prohibiting intermarriage between white persons and negroes is not interference with civil rights; State v. Gibson, 36 Ind. 389, 10 Am. Rep. 42; Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 16 Sup. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256; nor re
quiring separate schools; State v. McCann, 21 Ohio St. 210; Ward v. Flood, 48 Ca]. 36, 17 Am. Rep. 405; People v. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438, 45 Am. Rep. 232; nor requiring separate accommodations on railroad trains within the state ; Louisville, N. 0. & T. Ry. Co. v. State, 66 Miss. 662, 6 South. 203, 5 L. R. A. 132, 14 Am. St. Rep. 599 ; id., 133 U. S. 587, 10 Sup. Ct. 348, 33 L. Ed. 784 ; Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 16 Sup. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256 ; nor is the refusal of an inn keeper or keeper of a place of public amuse ment or proprietor of a public conveyance to accept certain classes of patrons such an interference with the civil rights of such excluded persons as to call for their con stitutional protection ; U. S. v. Stanley, 109 U. S. 3, 3 Sup. Ct. 18, 27 L. Ed. 835: Miller v. Texas. 153 U. S. 537, 14 Sun. Ct. 874, 38 L. Ed. 812 ; nor are civil rights denied to a negro because the grand jury which indicted him for murder was purposely composed of white men; Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 565, 16 Sup. Ct. 904, 40 L. Ed. 1075; Smith v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 592, 16 Sup.
Et. 900, 40 L. Ed. losg. But see Rogers v. Alabama, .192 U. S. 226, 24 Sup. Ct. 257, 48 L. Ed. 417, where such discrimination on account of race was held a denial of rights under the 14th Amendment, the objection having been taken in the state court by mo tion to quash the indictment.
Congressional inaction is equivalent to a declaration that a carrier may by its regu lations separate white and negro interstate passengers; Chiles v. Ry. Co., 218 U. S. 71, 30 Sup. Ct. 667, 54 L. Ed. 936, 20 Ann. Cas. 980.
Within the meaning of Civil Rights Acts, federal or state, a 'barber shop is not a place of public accommodation; Faulkner v. Solaz zi, 79 Conn. 541, 65 Atl. 947, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 601, 9 Ann. Cas. 67; nor a bootblack stand; Burks v. Rosso, 180 N. Y. 341, 73 N. E. 58, 105 Am. St. Rep. 762; nor a drug store containing a soda fountain ; Cecil v. Green, 161 Ill. 265, 43 N. E. 1105, 32 L. R. A. 566; nor a saloon ; Kellar v. Koerber, 61 Ohio St. 388, 55 N. E. 1002 ; Rhone v. Loomis, 74 Minn. 200, 77 N. W. 31, changed by statute Gen. St. Minn. 1913, § 6082; nor a billiard room; Com. v. Sylvester, 13 Allen (Mass.) 247; but a barber shop cannot discriminate against a negro; Messenger v. State, 25 Neb. 674, 41 N. W. 638. A skating rink has been held a place of amusement within such a State law; People v. King, 110 N. Y. 418, 18 N. E. 245, 1 L. R. A. 293, 6 Am. St. Rep. 389; otherwise as to one carried on by the owner of the building without state or mu nicipal license; Bowlin v. Lyon, 67 Ia. 536, 25 N. W. 766, 56 Am. Rep. 355. A race meeting is not; Grannan v. Racing Ass'n, 153 N. Y. 449, 47 N. E. 896 ; but a bowling Johnson v. Pop Corn Co., 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 135.
The Civil Rights Act is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly con strued; Grace v. Moseley, 112 Ill. App. 100; and the provision that any "person" who violates its provisions shall be amenable thereto is not restricted to natural persons, but includes corporations ; Johnson v. Pop Corn Co., 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. 135.
A person operating a place of public re sort, who claims the right to exclude per sons indicated by conduct, dress, or de meanor to be members of a disreputable class, is liable for a mistake made in the ex ercise of that right; Davis v. Power Co., 35 Wash. 203, 77 Pnc. 209, 66 L. R. A. 802.