SECTION 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment, proposed 1st February, 1865; declared ratified, 18th December, 1865.

This clause gives to Congress the power to protect all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States from being in any way subjected to slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime.1 Legislation which practically tends to secure the full enjoyment of personal freedom is "appropriate; e. g., a law prohibiting involuntary servitude in the form of peonage.2

The clause authorizes Congress to pass such laws as are uppropriate, but not to annul state laws or control their operation." The "power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" imports nothing more than the power to uphold the emancipating section, and prevent a violation of the liberty of the enfranchised race. Accordingly, Congress has no power to enact laws prohibiting the denial of equal accommodations in inns, theaters, and hotels, on account of race or color.4 The power to pass laws for the punishment of ordinary crimes and offenses belongs exclusively to the states, but Congress may pass an act removing the disabilities of negroes to sue or to testify,

6

1 United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 1 S. Ct. 601, 27 L. ed. 290.

2 People v. Washington, 36 Cal. 658.

2a In re Lewis, 114 Fed. 963.

3 People v. Brady, 40 Cal. 198.

4 Bowlin v. Commonwealth, 2 Bush, 5.

4a Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 25, 3 S. Ct. 18, 27 L. ed. 835.

5 United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 1 S. Ct. 601, 27 L. ed.

290; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 543, 23 L. ed. 588.

6 Handy v. Clark, 4 Houst. 6; State v. Rash, 1 Houst. Del. Crim.

and a law which permits only the same class of persons to testify against a negro as are allowed to testify against a white man, where personal liberty is concerned, tends to enforce this amendment and is valid."

7 United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abb. U. S. 34, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151; People v. Washington, 36 Cal. 658. But see Bowlin v. Commonwealth, 2 Bush, 5.

ARTICLE XIV.

CITIZENSHIP, REPRESENTATION, AND PUBLIC DEBT.

SECTION 1.

WHO ARE CITIZENS-RIGHTS OF.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Object and Scope of the Amendment.

The opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is affirmative and declaratory, and was intended to allay doubts and settle controversies which had arisen.1 The amendment conferred no new rights, but merely extended the protection of the federal constitution over the rights of life, liberty and property that previously existed under all state constitutions.2 Article IV, section 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment are both directed against state action, their object being to place citizens of each state on the same footing as citizens of the other states.3

This amendment is a restriction on the states as distinguished from the restrictions placed on the general government by the

1 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 666, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. ed. 890.

2 Mobile etc. R. R. v. Tennessee, 153 U. S. 506, 14 S. Ct. 968, 38 L. ed. 793.

8 United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 643, 1 S. Ct. 601, 27 L. ed. 299.

Fifth Amendment. It limits the exercise of the powers of the state with reference to the individual or his property, and it applies not only to the state specifically but to all its instrumentalities and agencies, to its executive, legislative and judicial departments, and it covers the acts of all state officers as such. It is applicable, however, only to the passage and enforcement of laws, not to mere adininistration. It nullifies all state legislation and state action impairing the privileges of citizens or injuring them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or denying equal protection of the laws, but it was not designed to extend to or override public rights or servitudes, existing in the form of easements, held by the courts of a state to be valid under the state constitution and laws."

The prohibitions are of acts of states and not of private individuals,10 and the amendment cannot be said to be impaired by the wrongful acts of individuals unsupported by state authority.11 Any wrongful act done by an individual under the authority of the state is prohibited.12

4 Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 25 L. ed. 667; United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 627, 1 S. Ct. 601, 27 L. ed. 290; Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 17, 3 S. Ct. 18, 27 L. ed. 835; Le Grand v. United States, 12 Fed. 581; Railroad Tax Cases, 18 Fed. 385; St. Louis v. Richeson, 76 Mo. 470.

5 San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 8 Saw. 238, 13 Fed. 722.

6 Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 233, 17 S. Ct. 581, 41 L. ed. 979; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 45, 14 S. Ct. 1108, 38 L. ed. 896; Ah Kow v. Nunan, 5 Saw. 552, Fed. Cas. No. 6546; Parrott's Case, 6 Saw. 349, 1 Fed. 481.

7 Claybrook v. Owensboro, 16 Fed. 297; Smoot v. Kentucky Cent. R. R., 13 Fed. 337.

8 Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 11-17, 3 S. Ct. 18, 27 L. ed. 835. Eldridge v. Trezevant, 160 U. S. 468, 16 S. Ct. 345, 40 L. ed. 490. 10 Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 25 L. ed. 667; United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 639, 1 S. Ct. 609, 27 L. ed. 290; Le Grand v. United States, 12 Fed. 580; Smoot v. Kentucky etc. R. R. Co., 13 Fed. 344; Kiernan v. Multnomah, 95 Fed. 849.

11 Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 12, 3 S. Ct. 22, 27 L. ed. £35.

12 Pacific Gas Imp. Co. v. Ellert, 64 Fed. 430; Nashville etc. Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 86 Fed. 184.

Effect on Police Power.

The police power was reserved by the states at the time the original constitution was adopted,13 and the Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to interfere in the least with the exercise of that power. 14 It does not limit the subjects upon which the police power of the states may be exerted,15 nor does it interfere with the powers of the courts in administering process provided by police regulations.16

Citizenship.

The Fourteenth Amendment is one of a series having a common object-the securing to the negro race of all the civil rights enjoyed by the white race, and the placing of such enjoyment under the protection of the federal government;17 and the first clause of section 1, by defining United States citizenship, brought the negro within the definition and conferred citizenship upon his race.18 This clause also establishes a citizenship of the United States distinct from the citizenship of the individual states.19

13 Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 665, 8 S. Ct. 273, 31 L. ed. 205.

14 Slaughter-house Cases, 16 Wall. 63, 21 L. ed. 394; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 31, 5 S. Ct. 357, 28 L. ed. 923; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 665, 8 S. Ct. 273, 31 L. ed. 205; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 683, 8 S. Ct, 992, 32 L. ed. 253; In re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 555, 11 S. Ct. 865, 35 L. ed. 572; Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 662, 13 S. Ct. 721, 37 L. ed. 599; Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U. S. 47, 17 S. Ct. 731, 42 L. ed. 71; Deems v. Mayor, 80 Md. 164, 45. Am. St. Rep. 339, 30 Atl. 648, 26 L. R. A. 541; State v. Schlenker, 112 Iowa, 642, 84 Am. St. Rep. 360, 84 N. W. 698, 51 L. R. A. 347.

15 Minneapolis Ry. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 29, 9 S. Ct. 207, 32 L. ed. 585; Jones v. Brim, 165 U. S. 182, 17 S. Ct. 282, 41 L. ed. 677; St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v. Mathews, 165 U. S. 25, 17 S. Ct. 252, 41 L. ed. 611; State v. Tutty, 41 Fed. 762, 7 L. R. A. 50; Youngblood v. Birmingham, 95 Ala. 526, 36 Am. St. Rep. 249, 12 South. 581, 20 L. R. A. 58.

16 In re Converse, 137 U. S. 632, 11 S. Ct. 191, 34 L. ed. 796.

17 Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 307, 25 L. ed. 664; Bush v. Kentucky, 107 U. S. 118, 1 S. Ct. 632, 27 L. ed. 354; Claybrook v. Owensboro, 16 Fed. 302.

18 Slaughter-house Cases, 16 Wall. 72, 21 L. ed. 394.

19 Slaughter-house Cases, 16 Wall. 73, 21 L. ed. 394; Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 158, 12 S. Ct. 375, 36 L. ed. 103; United States v.