United States v. Harris
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | WOODS; STORY |
| Citation | United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 1 S.Ct. 601, 27 L.Ed. 290 (1883) |
| Decision Date | 22 January 1883 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. HARRIS and others |
Section 5519 of the Revised Statutes of the United States declares:
'If two or more persons in any state or territory conspire or go in disguise upon the highway or on the premises of another for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities under the laws, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any state or territory from giving or securing to all persons within such state or territory the equal protection of the laws, each of said persons shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000, or by imprisonment, with or without hard labor, not less than six months nor more than six years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.'
This section was originally a part of section 2 of the act of April 20, 1861, (17 St. 13, 14.)
At the November term, 1876, of the United States circuit court for the western district of Tennessee, an indictment, based on this section, was teturned by the grand jury against one R. G. Harris and 19 others. The indictment contained four counts. The first count charged as follows:
The second count charged that the defendants, with force and arms, unlawfully did conspire together for the purpose of preventing and hindering the constituted authorities of the state of Tennessee, to-wit, the said William A. Tucker, deputy sheriff of said county, from giving and securing to the said Robert R. Smith and others, naming them, the due and equal protection of the laws of said state, in this, to-wit, that at and before the entering into said conspiracy, the said Robert R. Smith and others, naming them, were held in the custody of said deputy sheriff by virtue of certain warrants duly issued against them, to answer certain criminal charges, and it thereby became and was the duty of said deputy sheriff to safely keep in his custody the said Robert R. Smith and others while so under arrest, and then and there give and secure to them the equal protection of the laws of the state of Tennessee; and that the defendants did then and there conspire together for the purpose of preventing and hindering the said deputy sheriff from then and there safely keeping, while under arrest and in his custody, the said Robert R. Smith and others, and giving and securing to them the equal protection of the laws of said state.
The third count was identical with the second, except that the conspiracy was charged to have been for the purpose of hindering and preventing said William A. Tucker, deputy sheriff, from giving and securing to Robert R. Smith alone the due and equal protection of the laws of the state.
The fourth count charged that the defendants did conspire together for the purpose of depriving said P. M. Wells, who was then and there a citizen of the United States and the state of Tennessee, of the equal protection of the laws, in this, to-wit: said Wells having been charged with an offense against the laws of said state, was duly arrested by said Tucker, deputy sheriff, and so being under arrest was entitled to the due and equal protection of said laws, and to have his person protected from violence while so under arrest; and the said defendants did then and there unlawfully conspire together for the purpose of depriving said Wells of his right to the equal protection of the laws, and of his right to be protected in person from violence while so under arrest, and 'did then and there deprive him of such rights and protection, and of the due and equal protection of the laws of the state of Tennessee, by then and there, and while he, the said P. M. Wells, was so then and there under arrest as aforesaid, unlawfully beating, bruising, wounding, and killing him, the said P. M. Wells, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided,' etc.
The defendants demurred to the indictment on several grounds, among them the following:
(1) 'Because the offenses created by section 5519 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and upon which section the aforesaid four counts are based, are not constitutionally within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, and because the matters and things therein referred to are judicially cognizable by state tribunals only, and legislative action thereon is among the rights reserved to the several states and inhibited to congress by the constitution of the United States;' and——
(2) 'Because the said section 5519 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in so far as it creates offenses and imposes penalties, is in violation of the constitution of the United States, and an infringement of the rights of the several states and the people thereof.'
The case was heard in the circuit court on the demurrer to the indictment, and, as the record states,——
Section 651 of the Revised Statutes, which authorizes certificates of division of opinion, declares:
'Whenever any question occurs on the trial or hearing of any criminal proceeding before a circuit court, upon which the judges are divided in opinion, the point upon which they disagree shall, during the same term, upon the request of either party or their counsel, be stated under the direction of the judges, and certified, under the seal of the court, to the supreme court at their next session; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the cause from proceeding, if, in the opinion of the court, further proceedings can be had with out prejudice to the merits.'
Sol. Gen. Phillips, for the United States.
No counsel for Harris and others.
The certificate of division of opinion in this case does not expressly state that the point of difference between the judges was certified 'upon the request of either party or their counsel.' Neither party...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Gerhardt v. Lazaroff, No. C2-95-517.
...such legislation. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 635, 1 S.Ct. 601, 27 L.Ed. 290 (1883). The Court must therefore determine whether Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause and/or Spending Clause power......
-
Ballard v. Mississippi Cotton Oil Co.
...by the court of last resort thereto." And so, in Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, the court was asked to apply the doctrine of the Reese, Harris, and Franks' cases to the statute, and hold it violative of the fourteenth amendment. This statute provided: "Every foreign corporation violating a......
-
United States v. Johnson
...Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds." Morrison , 529 U.S. at 607, 120 S.Ct. 1740 ; see also United States v. Harris , 106 U.S. 629, 635, 1 S.Ct. 601, 27 L.Ed. 290 (1883) (explaining that courts must "give effect to the presumption that congress will pass no act not within its co......
-
McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co.
... 186 F. 966 McCABE et al. v. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. et al. No. 3,054. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. February 10, 1911 ... [186 F. 967] ... E ... L.Ed. 563; The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 99, 25 L.Ed ... 550; United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 641, ... 642, 1 Sup.Ct. 601, 27 L.Ed. 290; Virginia Coupon Cases ... (Poindexter ... ...
-
Back to the briarpatch: an argument in favor of constitutional meta-analysis in state action determinations.
...is `state' action is not always easy to determine."). (7.) See, e.g., The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 2, 11 (1883); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 638-40 (1882); Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 318 (1879); see also Public Utils. Commn. v. Pollack, 343 U.S. 451, 461 (1952) (applyin......
-
Dissing Congress.
...598, 607 (2000) (referring to United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 567, 577-78 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring), and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 635 (1880)). Of course, in Morrison, Lopez, and Harris, the Court overcame the presumption of constitutionality that attends Congressi......
-
The Long Road to Dignity: The Wrong of Segregation and What the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Had to Change
...80 U.S. 581 (1871); United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1876); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883). One lone exception to this dismal record of the Court is its decision in Ex parte Yarbrough , 110 U.S. 651 (1884), where the Court, ......
-
Hate crime regulation and challenges
...Wall.) 36 (1873). 52. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875); Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313 (1880). 53. See United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883). 54. Karen M. Blum, Section 1983 Litigation: The Maze, the Mud, and the Madness, 23 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 913, 913 (2......