Louisville v. State of Mississippi
Decision Date | 03 March 1890 |
Parties | LOUISVILLE, N. O. & T. Ry. Co. v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway Company was indicted for neglecting to provide separate accommodations on its trains for white and colored persons, as required by act of March 2, 1888. From a judgment of conviction, defendant appealed to the supreme court, where the judgment was affirmed. 6 South. Rep. 203. Defendant brings error.
W. P. Harris, for plaintiff in error.
T. M. Miller, Atty. Gen. Miss., for defendant in error.
The question presented is as to the validity of an act passed by the legislature of the state of Mississippi on the 2d of March, 1888. That act is as follows: Acts 1888, p. 48.
The plaintiff in error was indicted for a violation of that statute. A conviction in the trial court was sustained in the supreme court, and from its judgment this case is here on error. The question is whether the act is a regulation of interstate commerce, and therefore beyond the power of the state; and the cases of Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485, and Railroad Co. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 4, are specially relied on by plaintiff in error. It will be observed that this indictment was against the company for the violation of section 1, in not providing separate accommodations for the two races, and not against a conductor for a violation of section 2, in failing to assign each passenger to his separate compartment. It will also be observed that this is not a civil action brought by an individual, to recover damages for being compelled to occupy one particular compartment, or prevented from riding on the train; and hence there is no question of personal insult, or alleged violation of personal rights. The question is limited to the power of the state to compel railroad companies to provide, within the state, separate accommodations for the two races. Whether such accommodation is to be a matter of choice or compulsion, does not enter into this case. The case of Hall v. DeCuir, supra, was a civil action to recover damages from the owner of a steam-boat for refusing to the plaintiff, a person of color, accommodations in the cabin specially set apart for white persons; and the validity of a statute of the state of Louisiana prohibiting discrimination on account of color, and giving a right of action to the party injured for the violation thereof, was a question for consideration. The steam-boat was engaged in interstate commerce, but the plaintiff only sought transportation from one point to another in the state. This court held that statute, so far as applicable to the facts in that case, to be invalid. That decision is invoked here, but there is this marked difference: The supreme court of the state of Louisiana held that the act applied to interstate carriers, and required them, when they came within the limits of the state, to receive colored passengers into the cabin set apart for white persons. This court, accepting that construction as conclusive, held that the act was a regulat on of interstate commerce, and therefore beyond the power of the state. The chief justice, speaking for the court, said: And again: So the decision was by it terms carefully limited to those cases in which the law practically interfered with interstate commerce. Obviously, whether interstate passengers of one race should, in any portion of their journey, be compelled to share their cabin accommodations with passengers of another race, was a question of interstate commerce, and to be deter- mined by congress alone. In this case,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co.
...which cannot be imputed to a sovereign state. This conclusion is supported by abundant authority. In the case of Louisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Mississippi, supra, statute of Mississippi similar to that under consideration requiring all railroads carrying passengers in that state to provide e......
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of Indiana
...802, 39 L. Ed. 910;Minneapolis, etc., Co. v. Emmons, 149 U. S. 364, 13 Sup. Ct. 870, 37 L. Ed. 769;Louisville, New Orleans, etc., Co. v. Miss., 133 U. S. 587, 13 Sup. Ct. 348, 33 L. Ed. 784; Smith v. Alabama, supra; Mobile County v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 26 L. Ed. 238;Civil Rights Cases, ......
-
Hopkins v. City Of Richmond
...v. Milwaukee, 228 U. S. 572, 5S1, 33 Sup. Ct. 610, 57 L. Ed. 971. 3. As to constitutionality and validity: Louisville v. Miss., 133 U. S. 587, 10 Sup. Ct. 348, 33 L. Ed. 784; Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485, 24 L. Ed. 547; Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45, 29 Sup. Ct. 33, 53 L. Ed. 81;......
-
State ex rel. Natl. Rys. of Mexico v. Rutledge
...of the "commerce clause." Sec. 8, Art. I, of the Constitution of the United States; Elliott on Railroads, sec. 812; L.N. & O.T. Railroad Co. v. Mississippi, 133 U.S. 587; International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 579. (a) There is no evidence that the relator will be required to bri......
-
The Long Road to Dignity: The Wrong of Segregation and What the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Had to Change
...this law in DeCuir v. Benson , 27 La. Ann. 1 (1875). 119. Hall , 95 U.S. 485. 120. Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Ry. Co. v. Mississippi, 133 U.S. 587 (1890). 121. Hall , 95 U.S. at 490. 122. See id. at 487–91. 123. See id. 124. Id. 1056 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 74 blatant and defied rat......
-
Austria's pre-war Brown v. Board of Education.
...92 U.S. 542 (1875). (290.) Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 25 (1883). (291.) Louisville, New Orleans & Tex. Ry. Co. v. Mississippi, 133 U.S. 587, 592 (292.) 163 U.S. 537, 551 (1896). (293.) Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U.S. 213, 225 (1898). (294.) WOODWARD, supra note 169, at 98-99, 106......