*1 TERM, 1886. Syllabus. of claim of these not made An subject appellees. made on 2d of decree, of that the March, 1886, amendment the the sale of sale, to the here- provided property prior the shall title thereto, inbefore ordered pass purchaser all of liens the two claims, free discharged including in the sixth mentioned of of claims said classes paragraph of the existence and of The those decree.” question priority for consideration these therefore, one is, claims open appeals. stated above as raised The various the being questions not adverted have to, which are been particularly appellees, and it is not as considered, further regarded necessary fully in the made them, remark upon special points regard the of views on which .claims particular appellees, have case seem to us on those we rested controlling and points. questions made October Court, 9th, 1886, decree the Circwit of as it that the claims so decrees reversed, five far of to the lien andparamount prior, superior, appellees mentioned or deeds trust decree the mortgages secured 16th, 1886, and bonds February thereby ; as it so provides payment appel- far court, lees, out registi'y of fund the sand decree sums money specified in. several October, the case is to the Cir- 1886 and remanded 9th / with a direction to take such Court, cuit proceed- further inconsistent with this as shall not be opinion.
ings v. FRANKS.
BALDWIN THE STATES FOR THE OF UNITED TO COURT THE CIRCUIT ERROR OF DISTRICT CALIFORNIA. 7, 26, 1886.—Decided March Submitted April .Constitution, provide punishment power, Congress has rights, depriving subjects guilty Chinese 'of immunities, exemptions guaranteed them privileges, t.o m BALDWIN v. FEANKS. Statement of Facts. 17, 1880; Congress provision -of November but has made such Stat., nor Rev. nor in 5336. § § Stat., provision pumish-. Rev. Section unconstitutional conspiracy, state, deprive ment of a guar- within alien "of an *2 by treaty anteed to him therein a of the United States: whether it can be territory, against in a conspiring object, enforced that therewith not is now decided. Reese, 214, affirmed, applied States U. S. to the v. facts in case. .this part give' To effect to the rule that when of a statute- is constitutional and part unconstitutional, will, is possible, that which is constitutional be enforced, rejected, and that which is unconstitutional be will two parts capable separation, by itself; must be of so /that each can be read separation limitation not construction is Keokuk, Be, Illinois, Co.
Packet v. U. S. :aud U. Presser 116 S. dis- tinguished. describing In a offence citizen of the United for' States which provided by-Rev. punishment is Stat. the word “citizen” is used § sense; political meaning in its with the same which it.has the Four- Constitution; synonymous teenth-Amendment being and not as with"“resident,inhabitant,” “person.” To constitute the in the clause, offence described first of Rev. Stat. § violated, enough is that a law the is but States there positive a authority must be forcible resistance to a assertion of their government. an constitute offence under the second clause Rev. Stat. 5336there To. authority must be a forcible resistance of-the United States while endeavoring carry into execution. laws for writ habeas The set forth corpus. .petitioner Petition arrested, he that defendant error, United States Marshal for the District of under a warrant issued California, commissioner Circuit Court him with with others to certain- charging conspiring deprive of China subjects Emperor equal protection the laws and immunities equal privileges The laws.” set' forth the warrant, petition describing acts, and closed this averment and alleged illegal prayer: “ And claims and avers that the said com- your' petitioher said missioner of the Court no Circuit had or au- jurisdiction to issue said warrant, or to commit said thority your peti- tioner of the said Marshal, United States custody the said offence in the said has nor the said alleged complaint, TERM, 1886.
Opinion of the Court. to confine warrant or said your Marshal authority him of his aforesaid; restrain liberty, petitioner and for which the said in the said offence complaint, charged is said now issued, petitioner warrant'was your is one of state confinement, held in purely jurisdiction, being over which Government whatsoever. That tribunals have no peti- jurisdiction your and of the state of the United States a citizen of tioner to have been com- offence California, and said alleged within the of Sutter and jurisdiction mitted county unlawful,deten- state; be relieved of said said Wherefore, that writ of tion and prays your petitioner imprisonment, Franks, the said J. C. to be directed to may habeas corpus, forthwith behalf, issue in this so your petitioner and receive what to, submit do, before court brought the law may require.” then sued
Tiie court refused the writ. below petitioner *3 out this of writ error. in
Mr. A. L. Heart for error. plaintiff in for defendant error. Mr. Hall McAlUster the court. the of Mr. Chief delivered opinion Waite Justice Baldwin, Thomas This a writ of error brought of the Circuit for the review of error, judgment plaintiff for the District of California refus- States Court from the his on a writ of habeas corpus, custody discharge, ing for and the of the marshal of the district, questions'presented arise on a certificate of the holding consideration judges, them the of of a between court, division progress Opinion was-held trial. record that Baldwin The shows custody a, a commissioner of issued under warrant marshal, Wilson, with Bird Court, Circuit on a charge conspiracy others, Lee and William and others to Sing deprive Ilays, '. . . sub- aliens, to “a- class of Chinese being belonging China, jects equal Emperor under the laws, and immunities and laws equal privileges BALDWIN v. FRANKS. (cid:127)681
Opinion of Court. . . . for that said so to the class of .persons belonging did then . . . Chinese aliens reside at the town of Nicolaus, in said in said State of Sutter, and California, were county business and labor to earn a engaged legitimate living, and do, had- a at that time had a right . reside at said town . . Nicolaus, and engage legit- imate business and labor to earn under and virtue living, of the treaties and did then between exist, existing, Government of and China, Emperor and Constitution laws the United States; and but, (cid:127) said . . nevertheless, while . ... were so and their business and labor for residing pursuing legitimate said aforesaid, . . . . . . did, conspirators for that and having conspired together purpose, unlawfully and and arms, force with intimidation, chive violently and said . . . to said class of expel belonging . from . . their at Chinese, residence said town of Nico- did . . . and . . . . laus, them . . of the deprive and of the business privilege conducting legitimate to earn a and, without privilege laboring living, any legal . n . . said . Chinese aliens . . under placed. process, unlawful and restraint and so detained arrest, them several with, and . iorce hours, ... violence arms, them . . intimidation, placed barge, steamboat then Feather River, drove them from their plying residence and from said labor county.” certified relate of this questions, only sufficiency detention of nine There charge prisoner. ques- aré tions the first six all, reference to 5519 of the having statutes, Revised the others 5508 and as the §§ *4 for the The fourth authority prosecution. fairly presents the arises whole case as under and that is as follows: § “4. Whether of two or more in the conspiracy persons California, State .of of Chinese resi- depriving of dents, California, lawfully residing pursuance of the several treaties between the United States provisions and of of China, to live Emperot right pursue at their of town Nicolaus in said State, lawful vocations TERM, 1886.
Opinion of the Court. of such actually, conspiracy, forcibly pursuance expel- from' said the manner shown town, such Chinese ling A and an is: 1. violation of offence within record; Statutes of the United Revised States. meaning §.5519 as it 2. so far said section, "Whether said state applies and makes residents, and such stated facts Chinese theracts States, an is constitutional offence against ” valid ? all the The consideration seventh presents points : 5508 and as follows §§ or without or more Where two disguise, “ Chinese lawfully residing subjects,
go upon hinder intent to California, .the State to them secured free exercise or enjoyment of. and the Em- between the United States the several treaties of such and, forcibly of China, pursuance conspiracy, peror their exercise and such expel enjoyment rights, prevent' in which reside: from the town such Chinese subjects “ constitute an offence acts so Whether performed (1) such 5508 of the Revised within the meaning provisions § ? and, of the' United States Statutes “ section, of said so so, If whether provisions making (2) and valid ? are constitutional offence, acts an said an constitute offence acts so Whether subh performed (3) 5336 of the Revised clause within meaning makes it an offence for Statutes ‘ force, state to or more conspire, two in any hinder, delay execution prevent, other clause thé within States,’ meaning ? and, said section far as facts so section, said applicable Whether (4) ”? law of the United valid is a constitutional stated, is not whether to determine have question precise, we the constitutional authority provide has Congress which Baldwin that with an offence as of such punishment but it has so done. whether charged, n surrendered has been That treaty-making power It is unquestionable. states and given United. *5 BALDWIN v. FRANKS.
Opinion of tlie Court. treaties made true, also, States are force and that land, supreme part they are within the territorial hmits of thé as states binding are elsewhere the dominion of the United throughout States. Articles II III aof between the States United
„and the of China, concluded 17, November Emperor the President of the United -October States, proclaimed are as follows: II. Chinese whether subjects, proceeding “ Article States as teachers, students, or from curi- merchants, with their and household together servants, osity, body laborers are Chinese now shall be allowed come their own freé will and go accord, be all shall accorded immunities and rights, privileges, which are accorded the citizens exemptions and subjects of the most favored nation.” If III. Chinese laborers or Chinese of other any Article either now
(cid:127)class, in the permanently temporarily residing, of the United meet ill treatment at territory hands of other the' Government of the .United will exert ah to devise measures for their power pro- tection and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities, and citizens exemptions enjoyed by most favored nation, and which subjects entitled Stat. 827. by treaty.” That the United States have under the Constitution power to' of those who are punishment de- provide guilty Chinese im-' subjects priving rights, privileges, munities, to them this exemptions guaranteed we treaty, doubt; What do we have to decide, under the questions here certified the court below, is, whether this has been from Statutes, the sections of the done Ee vised referred specially These sections are as to. follows: 5519. If two or more state persons territory Sec. on the or on the conspire, disguise highway another, for either or in- depriving, directly or class of person directly, any equal TERM, 1886. 684: Opinion Court. and immunities or of laws, equal privileges the con- laws; or hindering puipose 'preventing *6 from state or or se- stituted authorities territory of any giving such to all within state or the territory curing persons equal shall be of the laws each of such ; persons punished protection nor more of not less than five hundred than five fine by or with or thousand without hard dollars, imprisonment, by nor than six less.than six months more or labor, not years, by both such fine imprisonment.” If more 5508. two or to persons conspire injure, “Sec. in the or intimidate citizen free exercise threaten, any oppress, or secured to him any or privilege right by enjoyment or or laws of the United because of Constitution or if or exercised the two more same; so his persons having or on another, on highway, disguise exercise or hinder his free or intent' enjoy- secured, or so shall be fined ment any privilege dollars, and not more not more than five thousand imprisoned thereafter be shall, moreover, than ten ineligible years; trust or created honor, or office, place profit, by any States.” or laws of the United Constitution If two more state or terri- or Sec. persons or to force overthrow, down, destroy put by tory conspire or to of the war the Government levy against or thereof;, force them, or authority oppose force or the execution of hinder, law of the delay prevent, or seize, take, force States; possess any prop- States of the United contrary thereof; authority erty fine of not less each of them shall than five punished than more five thousand dollars not dollars; hundred hard labor, with or without for by imprisonment, period than more six months, than six nor both less such years, fine and imprisonment.” is held in
As Baldwin charge custody-was under is the made section which evidently court considered in the we will below, was most answer first. It for based on that provides questions punishment' “ in who state those . . territory conspire BALDWIN FRANKS.
n Opinion of tile Court. either depriving, directly indireotly, any' or class of of laws, equal person protection ofor or immunities the laws.” under equal privileges
In United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. was decided this section unconstitutional, was aas for. provision therein character mentioned, punishment conspiracies a state. It now said, within that' in however, case the in a state a citizen by persons conspiracy charged States and of of the United him state, to deprive he was entitled to under the laws of that no state, Constitution, arising special or treaties of the United laws, involved; and'it is being that, section be so far' invalid as such an although argued it is concerned, offence of those good punishment aliens of to’ conspire deprive rights guaranteed *7 in a the treaties state, them of the United. States. In of this reliance is-had on the well settled argmnent support that a statute be in rule constitutional and in may part part and that under some unconstitutional, circumstances the part will is constitutional be enforced, which that which only unconstitutional To to this rale, is effect how- rejected. give (cid:127) — n which is that constitutional and that ever, parts which — unconstitutional must be is so that capable separation, itself. statute, This considered each as a read'by in a is not of that state, statute char- conspiracies punishing that it acter, has no within the mean- connection parts it of the rule. Whether is so that it can be separable, ing in a not in state, enforced another territory, though quite and one we are not now on to called décide. It (cid:127)question, terms of all who general provides punishment class conspire purpose depriving any person, or of laws, equal' protection equal under immunities the laws. A single provision, n which makes embraces section, whole those who con- up citizens as well as those who against conspire spire against (cid:127)— those who one of his aliens under conspire deprive rights laws of a and those state, him of conspire deprive under Constitution, his treaties of the laws, OCTOBER-TERM, 686'
Opinion of the Court. United. States. The limitation must be. made, sought which construction, at not has all, This, often by separation. n beendecided, is not enough. S.
Thus, 92 U. Reese, indictment was of a two of election municipal inspectors 3 and 4 act c. 1870, 114, Kentucky,, May §§ 16 Stat. terms for the 140, which provided general punish- ment of who should refuse to receive inspectors wrongfully imder vote of a citizen when certain circum- presented and for the of those who unlawful stances, punishment means from hindered or act .citizen delayed any doing any vote, to be him to from at done required qualify voting election. There was- in either of the sections nothing to limit their to a hindrance on refusal or account operation ”' race, condition servitude of the color, previous, and it voter, because, was held were unconstitutional they on their face, werebroad acts enough cover-w'rongful without as well within the of Con- power constitutional n An made there here to limit the gress. attempt so as construction, to make it statute by operate only but to Congress might rightfully .prohibit punish; this the court 221: For this we must take said, p. these'sections of the statute as are. We are not able to which is and retain the remain- reject unconstitutional, part because it is not der, which is uncon- separate pqssibleTo if there be stitutional, from that which is not. The such, not to effect is be attained out or disre- proposed by striking that are in words those garding section, but- inserting there. that are now- Each of the sections must stand as *8 a or fall whole, is is There altogether. language plain. no construction, room for unless it be as to the effect of the Constitution. The then to be determined question whether is, can we introduce words limitation into statute so as penal to it make it is when, specific, expressed, general only.” This was in the court answered To negative, remarking: limit this statute in manner now asked for to would be make a to new not enforce an old one.” law,- in this Cases, were U. S. 82, the Trade-Mark
Following v. FRANKS. BALDWIN Opinion the Court. undqr. 4 and 5 of the act indictments
which there were §§ “to counter c. Stat. punish 14, 1876, August in of counter and sale-or of trade-mark dealing feiting goods act the court' said, Of this feit trade-mark speaking goods.” that broad “was to Miller, 98, Mr. Justice p. through of trade-mark a universal registration, establish system or who wished trade-mark, all had used benefit of who already to the character of to in the without future, one regard adopt residence to which it was to be trade applied in’ those who resided- that with owner, solitary exception’ no to us were such countries which extended foreign broad and from them here.” A statute so excluded sweeping held not be within constitutional was then grant to the- but whether trade p. Congress, legislative power in terms relation commerce mark bears such a general used or control, it within when applied congressional bring control,” within that commerce which fall to the classes of The indictment, however, undecided. was left pre properly a case in Which defendant was sented charged having and imitations of the in counterfeits colorable his possession it and was manufacturers, trade-marks suggested foreign trade-marks used in had that-if Congress power regulate the several- States, nations commerce foreign among cases, held valid that class of no be statute might so said, but the court decided further; otherwise, doing be true that one statute “’While it when 98: may part p. is unconstitutional constitutional, another valid part the court enforce- valid where are void, may part, so stand it is alone, that each can not' distinctly separable, words used Con within judicial province give narrower than are intended meaning manifestly gress.^ order crimes not bear, punished them within the constitu described brings language And further after on, of that cit tional body.” again, power from the States v. Reese, quoting opinion ing it “If we case before should, 99: case, said, p. make a law which undertake to construction us, by judicial- do what, did we should make, probable Congress quite *9 TERM,
Opinion of Court. it the matter were now before that would be unwill body, make a trade-mark which is law donamely, ing par only tial and which would operation, complicate would instances hold, some under the act of parties others' State law.” Congress, The same was also considered and the former decis questiop Harris, ions United States v. and in approved supra ; Virginia Cases, 269, U. S. it was said that Coupon “ to hold otherwise would be to substitute for intended one never have been legislature they may willing by itself to enact.” Keokuk,
It however, that Packet v.Co. 95 U. suggested, S. Presser v. Illinois, 116 inconsistent are U. S. United States v. Reese the Trade-Mark Cases but we ; do not so understand them. In Keokuk, Packet Co.v. arose an ordinance of the of Keokuk estab question upon city a wharf on the and the lishing Eiver .rates of Mississippi to be for its use. In its wharfage paid general scope ordinance was broad to include a of the shore of enough part the river declared to be a wharf, which was its natural.con dition and unimproved. however, city.had, built, actually wharf at within paved, improved large expense limits of the and the then in ordinance, were charges question for use the facilities for and dis thus provided receiving An was made charging cargoes. objection validity because it ordinance, be provided charges paid use of the bank as well as for the unimproved improved but whaiwes, said, the court 89: The ordinance of Keokuk p. has no these charge it imposed which was tfe plaintiffs vond To the extent power city to which impose. are affected there is no valid objection it. Stat that are utes constitutional will be only so far part upheld are not in conflict with the Constitution, provided allowed are severable. think prohibited We a sev parts erance is in this case. It be conceded that possible ordinance is too and that broad, some of' its are provisions unwarranted. When those -to be provisions attempted a different enforced, That was question may presented.”
BALDWIN FRANKS.
Opinion of the Court. but ordinance statute, not a only city regulating'wharf- penal *10 in The and the was civil its nature. suit only question age, bound was whether the was company pay packet in when taken ordinance, wharves use improved fixed the use breadth, payment charges required was that of the established wharf which part unimproved that to be was which point improved. precise well circumstances, determined was under those t3ie vessel whether, of that owners were excused from for the use which paying was improved. for a Illinois,
In Presser v.
indictment was
violation
one of the sections of the
Code
Military
provisions
invalid,
and it
claimed that the
code was
Illinois,
whole
in
its-
it was
conflict with
because
effect
scope
general
Title
the Revised .Statutes of
United States
XYI
“
if
of The Militia.” But the court held
even
that,
subject
the first two
code,
rested,
sections
on which
objection
from the
invalid,
were
were
easily
rest
separable
could be maintained. The
sections
related
objectionable
the enrolment
the militia
and the-
the state generally,
“
to the
men as a
rest
thousand
volunteer-
eight
organization
case
active militia.” This
that
within the-
evidently brought
class of
rule which controls the determination of this
questions,,
of a
that the constitutional
be enforced
statute part
the unconstitutional
where the
are so dis
part rejected;
parts
each can stand
where
alone,
tinctly separable
court is able
see
of -the-
and.
declare
intention
was that the
valid should be en-
legislature
part pronounced
fail.”
even
the other
forcible,
should
Virginia
though
part
Opinion of the Court. no. we see occasion for That case was consid- doing. carefully at the ered reflection has not time, subsequent changed our .as then For this reason we opinion answer the expressed. certified, second branch of the fourth which has been question, in the all This the other included negative. points disposes in the first six and no further answer to them is questions, necessary.
We certified, come now to the which arise under questions 5508. That this section is constitutional was decided Ex 110 U. S. parte Yarbrough, Waddell, 112 U. S. determined, 76 The to be therefore, real question is, whether'what is done to have been Baldwin con charged stitutes an offence within the of its meaning provisions.
The section found in Title LXX, c. Bevised Statutes “Crimes the Elective Franchise embracing *11 and Civil of and it Citizens,” Bights provides punish- “ ment those who of conspire injure, threaten, oppress^ intimidate in citizen the free exercise or of any enjoyment any secured to him the right Constitution laws privilege of the United or- of because his exercised the having ” same; and of those-who in of two or more “in companies on the or on the disguise another, with highway, intent to or hinder his free exercise or prevent enjoyment so- Tne secured.” whom the right privilege person to be must be inflicted wrong is described as a punishable In citizen. Constitution and laws the United States .the word “.citizen” is if not used in a generally, always, political sense to one has and designate of a privileges Citizenof a state ofor the United States. isIt so used in section 1 of Article XIV amendments of the Constitution, “ all born or naturalized in provides the United to the subject jurisdiction thereof, citizens the United States and of the state wherein reside,” that “no state shall make or enforce' law which shall or immunities abridge citizens States.” But it is in also sometimes used popular language indicate the same as resident, thing inhabitant, person. That it is in not so used in 5508 is Bevised Statutes quite §
BALDWIN FRANKS.
Opinion of the Court. statute from if revert which this sec- we clear, original was the act That statute 31, 1870, was taken. c. tion May enforce the “to of Citizens of the 16 Stat. Eight vote in the several States of this to. Union, ' It is the statute which was under con- for other purposes.” in. of its sections Reese, as to some United States v. sideration as as its title, and from its well is text, supra, apparent in its enactment was to enforce Congress great of citizens of the the sev- the political j¿ghts these circumstances states. Under there cannot be a doubt eral ” the word citizen was used its sense, that originally political Statutes are the Eevised a revision and consolida- and as but the statutes force December 1,1873, tion of presumption there, word has the same that it had is that the meaning origi- nally. section is a substantial
This re-enactment particular which is the sections that deal act, found among original citizens, exclusively political rights especially intended discrim- vote, wefe evidently in this voters on account of race, inations particular against condition servitude.” as Sometimes, color, previous than this, broader therefore, language §§ Reese, States v. those sections are decided inopera- it is but still had tive, everywhere apparent Congress citizens, and not as citizens, in mind mere legislate or inhabitants. residents much more so character, This section highly penal it not as a others, for than only provides punishment not more than five thousand dollars and an *12 a fine of offence than of not more ten but it declares that years, imprisonment “ be thereafter convicted shall any any ineligible person the, or trust created honor, Consti- office, profit, place laws of the United States.” It to be is, therefore, tution not so as to defeat the construed strictly; strictly legislative words are not to be extended doubtful but will, beyond used. in the connection which natural meaning “ and it in connection doubtful word is is used citizen,” Here citizen, to a man as a privileges pertaining rights TERM, Opinion of the Court. or an And, besides, and not as a inhabitant. only person crime has been classified the revision those which among franchise and relate to the elective the civil of citizens. rights For these we are satisfied that the reasons word “citizen,” as' used in must be statute, the same it has given meaning the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, that to the offence is there for, the provided constitute wrong must be who done to one is citizen in sense..
It is true that the word “citizen” occurs in the first only clause of the but in there section, the second clause is nothing to indicate that other than a citizen was meant, section of the statute from which this was taken has original from which -different inference can be drawn'. nothing That alone, deals with citizens and the revision differs clearly from it in a sentences and only re-arrangement original the exclusion of some words. Sections 5506 and superfluous 5507, which the revision, this'in immediately precede clearly refer to both relate to the political only, privi- for the lege citizens in voting, being protection § for the terms, those to whom being protection § .the the Fifteenth Amend- suffrage guaranteed by ment of the It Constitution. be that this construction of the statute some are excluded from the it affords who are as much entitled to it as those"who are included ; but that is a defect, exists, which can be cured by Congress, but the courts.
We therefore answer the first subdivision the seventh in the certified second question subdivision negative. need not be answered otherwise than it has Keen elsewhere in this opinion.
It remains to consider that only certi- part questions fied which relates 5336. That section provides those punishment to overthrow, conspire, down, put force of the United "destroyby government war them, or to levy force the oppose authority thereof;” or, force to hinder, or 2,;“by the ex- prevent, delay ecution of law of the States; ”"or, force to seize, take, of the United States possess any con- property
BALDWIN v. FRANKS.
Opinion of tlie Court. to the thereof.” is a This authority re-enactment trary similar the act of c. 1861, 33, provisions Stat. July define and certain 281, “to and in punish Conspiracies,” c. 20, 1871, 22, 17 Stat. “to enforce the April Pro- n visions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of States, and for other Purposes.” It cannot be claimed that Baldwin has been with a charged to overthrow the or to war within conspiracy government levy the of this section. Nor is he at- meaning charged " All,-there- n to seize the of the United States. tempt property fore, section which 'depends part provides for force the punishment “opposing” authority for preventing, hindering, or delaying ” “ execution of law of the United States. This force implies evidently against government To constitute an offence under first clause, government. must be authority that is to government opposed; force must be to resist some brought say, positive assertion A mere violation law'is authority by government. not there must be an actual ex- enough; attempt not ercise That is authority. this case. The pretended was exerted force to a class of who had. opposition persons to look government protection against such while wrongs,' opposition government in an to afford that actually engaged attempt protection. as to the second So, too, clause, the offence consists in pre- of the United venting, hindering, delaying government in the execution of laws. This, as well as the other, means more than the laws themselves at something setting (cid:127) must defiance. There be a forcible resistance of author- of the United States while the laws ity carry endeavoring into execution. bound their treaty with .China to exert their to devise measures to secure power of that within subjects government lawfully residing of the United States ill territory treatment, efforts to effect into had been carry who had forcibly opposed conspired pur- a state of would the statute have things pose, contemplated by TERM, 1886.
694: Harlan, Dissenting Opinion: *14 has done. Baldwin His But that is not what conspir- arisefi. not treatment or itself, is for the ill hindering acy of execution their States in the measures delaying exerted the Chinese it. His force was against to prevent in its efforts to pro- against government people,' therefore, to answer the third- We are tect them. compelled, in the and that of the seventh negative, subdivision question the fourth subdivision. covers without case, and,
This of the answering whole disposes detail, inmore certified questions Court, Circuit omd remand We reverse the judgment of not inconsistent with this the case proceedings for further opinion. Harlan Me. Justice dissenting. 1880-1881, China, of with Government
By treaty to exert all its to devise United States power .the agreed ill treatment at the hands measures for the against protection, laborers or Chinese of other other Chinese .of in at the time, or class, temporarily residing, permanently to secure to them the same rights, country, privileges, to the citizens or immunities and subjects exemptions entitled, nation are here. the most favored by treaty, enjoy in this that if case, Chinamen, seem from the decision It would remain our under the country, treaty, right, having their the Government bfisiness, driven from places forcibly without its own courts, States is power, such or to those violence, who, them punish protect ill If this as to be-so, them to treatment. this way, subject it must be Chinamen equally lawfully nation, other as to the citizens every true foreign subjects of treaties here under the sanction business residing doing respective governments. law, state of the 'and think that such is the I do not present of the court. must dissent from the judgment opinion be within the court to It is conceded opinion — constitutional of Congress provide power BALDWIN v. FRANKS. Opinion ¡Harlan, Dissenting
the Revised Statutes it has doné —that if two ok more per- sons or intimidate conspire injure, threaten, oppress, in the free citizen exercise or enjoyment any right privi- himto secured Constitution or laws of the United by .the lege or because of his so exercised the or: same; having two or more disguise highway, on..the another, intent to or hinder his free so secured, exercise enjoyment any right privilege n &c. fined,” shall be It is also conceded in the- that, of that section, between this Government meaning ” ; n is a nation and that and a foreign Baldwin and others done subjects wrongs named in China, the free warrant, prevented Emperor and’ secured exercise enjoyment *15 the between .the United States and. those aliens.by in these but I concur am unable to assent to views,, China. that the offence is not the embraced charged by proposition or section other enactment valid of Con- the by any foregoing gress. hold that 5508 brethren describes done to only wrongs My § ” “ in other that citizen; words, did not intend, Congress by the free exercise or of section,
that protect enjoyment rights n the Constitution or laws of the United by secured citizens concerned. This, me, where seems to except the "of statute which its neither an interpretation language that Observe, nor the demands justifies. subject “ was the of or dealing protection any right priv- Congress Constitution laws of the United secured by ilege” is, There» perhaps, plausiblé ground States. holding of embraces directed clause only first conspiracy “ But the a citizen.” clause describes two succeeding two offences, and distinct more namely, going other “ on the and the of two in disguise highway,” going ” — on the another is, premises more persons another either intent, case, person the premises —with free exércise such or hinder by enjoyment per- prevent to him secured the Constitu- by privilege of any son United States. The use of the word laws tion TERM, Opinion: Harlan,
Dissenting instead of in the latter “another,” “citizen,” clause, shows so that, secured, respect rights privileges Congress had in mind the whether citizens or not. protection persons, In this view, the statute is not unlike Fourteenth Amend ment, the first section of which as well recognizes rights appertaining citizenship rights belonging persons. Baldwin and others, statements the war according did on the rant, certainly another,” premises to interfere with intent; which the court concede are rights secured and, therefore, treaty, supreme land. Chew v. United 112 U. S. Heong 536, 540; Head Cases, U. S. 580. In Money the case my judgment is within both the letter and It statute. spirit is, how ever, the court from its excepted by operation by imputing national Congress purpose withholding from those who do not happen enjoy — American inconsistent with the citizenship, obli which the nation has assumed treaties with gations other countries. I cannot think it possible while Congress, pro for the of two or more viding punishment on go* of a citizen, with intent to his premises free exer prevent 'cise or secured enjoyment rights Constitution or laws of the United States, refrained from purposely providing of the same punishment persons going not a one, with intent to citizen, enjoyment by latter of secured the same Constitution and laws.
The rule of which the court -interpretation down, if lays ap- in other will lead cases, plied results. Ve strange have *16 “ statutes which to who give is the every person head of a or who has arrived at the family, age twenty-one and years, is-a citizen of the United or who has filed his declara- tion of intention to become such, the required by naturaliza- tion laws,” &c., Kev. Stat. 2289, 2291, the right, §§ of a homestead, and under certain purposes’ conditions, enter lands. The unappropriated public party making ifor, he be his entry, dead, widow, &c., will entitled ulti- to receive a he mately resides patent, provided culti- upon vates the land fór a certain time, length provided, v.
BALDWIN FRANKS. . 697 Harlan, Opinion: Dissenting he have a shall become citizen of foreigner, .case for a his Now, the United prior application patent. is under the homestead that an made, statute, entry suppose a similar is made at the same a time,, citizen, entry by one has his filed declaration of only the same locality, by become a'citizen. residence intention to During period-of both of so and cultivation the lands the parties making upon the land will driven from are, entries we suppose, forcibly by with the them lawless band intent prevent to a In' the rights patent. perfecting respective from thus held in of the citizen case wronged, .we he Waddell, 112 U. S. invoke protection and in that have the by way wrong-doers pun- given- in a United States as therein ished court prescribed. his in the case of the who has inten- But person only declared cannot be reached citizen, to become tion wrong-doers in a court States, because, indictment in this furnishes case, decision that section only to citizens. I no such believe made It suggestion though said— “if or more court —that words two dis- persons go another,” -on the premises highway, apply
guise on^.the “ in offenders are I cannot when the disguise.” only suppose intended make a distinction between wrong- Congress another,” doers premises disguise going secured Constitution interfering rights laws of the United Avho wrong-doers openly enter the same with like un- Avithout masks premises It rather, homes of all intended, lawful guard purpose. invasion combinations of lawless men, who persons those the iree homes, exercise of seek, entering the Constitution or laAvsof the United States. secured by rights read, had “if tAVOor more on the the clause If on the Avould another,” disguise, premises highway one that the Avords on the ocqur never x“ ” Avords in The free were disguise.” another qualified by the United States should secured by exercise personal circum’stancethat made to trifling not be depend upon *17 TERM, 1886. Harlan, Opinion: Dissenting J.
n words “in than the follow, words disguise” precede,-rather “ on the .. highway.”
In the of two or more whether my judgment going persons, or iir the another, whether the openly disguise, on premises latter bé a citizen or with intent free not,' exer- prevent hi§ . or cise of a secured the Constitution or enjoyment right offence, laws the was made 5508 an by § the United States. against
I feel also to non-concurrence in so much my obliged express of the court that as holds is without opinion Congress under the make it —as 5519 of power Constitution by § — Eevised Statutes it an. offence is made against States for two more any state, conspire, or on disguise another, highway, purpose depriving, directly indirectly, any person or class of laws, persons equal protection or immunities under the laws; or equal privileges the constituted authorities preventing hindering n . . state . from all giving securing . within such state . . of the laws.” equal protection It not in this case, to is the what full necessary, inquire of that clause of Fourteenth Article of scope Amendment, ' no shall that state . . provides deny any per son within of the laws.” jurisdiction equal’ protection It is sufficient to that that does more say, provision something than limit prescribe duty states. power Taken connection the fifth section, conferring upon to enforce Amendment Congress power by appropriate leg-. islation, to a in affirma provision declaration, equivalent n tive within the of a language, every person jurisdictio state has a right equal protection laws; just in the Thirteenth Amendment, prohibition existence of to annul state laws operated only slavery, but to institution, establish “universal civil upholding freedom States,” political throughout the invest individual within their every person jurisdiction Cases, Civil S. freedom, 20; U. Rights as the just the Fifteenth prohibition Amendment, against
BALDWIN v. FRANKS. .Opinion: Harlan,
Dissenting *18 of the the or of the of citizens United denial abridgment right con to on"account of their or race, color, States vote, previous “a to such citizens with servitude, dition of invest operated from United constitutional which “comes the new right,” “ in the exer from discrimination States,” namely, exemption the on of or franchise, race, color, cise of elective account pre Cruikshank, of servitude.” v. vious condition States United S. U. S. 542; Reese, U. it held was cited, In the Civil above Cases, Rights p. under to enforce, that its Congress, by appro express power Amendment, the provisions Thirteenth priate legislation, “ direct so far as or enact could, necessary proper, legislation, individuals, the acts- of whether and primary, operating upon of the' not,” sanctioned state or by legislation all forms and incidents of involuntary eradicating slavery since, And servitude.” matter exemption voting, or race, color, discrimination account of of citizens from on (cid:127)“ from is a which comes condition servitude right previous or secured the United States,” United granted ” it be cited, above can United States v. States, Cruikshank its to enforce that doubted power Congress, express make could Amendment, Fifteenth legislation, by appropriate offence, or more it for two an the United States persons vote, the citizen’s conspire deny abridge ? Is race or color there excep account his any recognized tion to the rule may, by appropriate general Congress derived from secure guaran legislation, protect rights: 1 Be teed Constitution laws must answered in these negatjVe, questions lieving 5519; constitutional I unable to am any objection perceive as to of such a serious character justify none certainly, has transcended it, court Congress, by enacting holding to secure States is If powerless powers. within the of the laws jurisdiction equal protection hostile state, until state, legislation, denied such have pro shall authorities, of her action judicial courts even then interfere tection, only through can state of such the validity either of the Union in suits involving TERM, 1886. Harlan, Dissenting Opinion: authorities, the action of the state is difficult legislation, to understand invested why power, Congress to enforce the Four provisions appropriate legislation, without such' Amendment; for, teenth power legislation, courts Union annul to- state laws competent any or reverse action-of officers, state -the judicial deny the laws or class equal particular person Indeed, since the persons. organization government, there has existed courts of the Union for remedy in a denial, court, state immunities rights, privileges, derived It States. seems that the from main me to enforce, purpose.of giving Congress power by legislation, the Amendment that the provisions was, therein be guarded and granted guaranteed might protected against *19 individuals, lawless combinations of without the direct acting denial the state. The the state of the by equal sanction of the laws to within its protection persons jurisdiction may arise as well from the or failure of the-state authori inability to ties that as from enactments. give protection, unfriendly If over the whole Congress, determined upon looking ground, an that effectual and mode to secure such appropriate protec tion was to combinations of proceed directly against individuals, or violent to means, defeat sought, by by. conspiracy of' the Constitution, tne I do not enjoyment see right given what can the courts ground question validity legis to lation that end.
There is another view of this which seems to be question In v. 112 U. Waddell, S. important. 76, and has case, this the court sustained the again of Con- power to enact 55.08,which, other it gress makes an among things, offence the United States for two or more against persons to on the or on the “go highway, disguise premises another,” intent to or his hinder free exercise or secured enjoyment Consti- right privilege tution or laws of United States. it is Now, difficult to understand can do it not this, make it why, Congress ah offence for the same (§ on persons “go disguise 5519) of or on the for another, highway, premises purpose
BALDWIN FRANKS. Eield, Opinion: Dissenting of. class directly indirectly, any person of depriving, laws.” only protection possi- equal “ this is to answer to say equal protec- ble suggestion ” is not a secured laws tion of the privilege it States. But seenis to that, me, of the United Constitution of that violence said,, without cannot doing language thé the intention with instrument, people defeating it. adopted since announced court It was Congress long the choice of and must be means, must empowered possess áre in fact conducive to the use mteans which exercise of a States v. Constitution.” granted power And McCulloch v. Fisher, Cranch, Maryland, Marshall, Wheat. Chief Justice 361, 421, speaking The sound construction the Constitution must .said: court, that discretion, to the national allow legislature respeet to be which the confers are carried to the means by powers which will enable that execution, into' body perform in the manner it. most beneficial to the duties assigned high In view these settled doctrines of people.” constitutional. it is I am law, unwilling say appropriate legisla for the enforcement Constitu tion right, given by laws, make tion, Congress equal fine and it an offence punishable by for two or more state to con imprisonment, on the disguise highway, go spire, him another, depriving equal pro *20 tection of the laws.
Mr. Justice Field dissenting. of the
I with its court' majority agree construction different sections of the which have been Revised-Statutes case, under consideration third clause except and the last clause of 5508. § § declares The third clause that if two or more per- state force
sons territory prevent, conspire by the execution of United hinder, delay' any law. TERM, .1886. ..'
n Dissenting-Opinion: Field,. J. each, a State's,” of' them shall be fine of not less punished than than or more $5,000, $500 with or by imprisonment, without hard for a less than months or labor, period six more than six fine and both.such years; imprisonment. Chiha of 1868 the By treaty recog- nize the of Chinese to to this and"de- emigrate country, clare that in the States the subjects empire shall and' immunities in the same enjoy privileges respect residence which citizens of the most enjoyed by subjects favored nation. in error is, he con- complaint against plaintiff with others force from town of
spired Nicolaus, to'expel by and the the State of Sutter, the sub- county Cahfomia, ' jects China, were Emperor residing doing business- there, furtherance of the entered conspiracy the homes of certain class, seized them, them a on Feather on the forcibly placed River, barge ,of bank of which the town is Nicolaus and drove situated, them from the and thus them of county, deprived' and immunities conferred treaty.
For this offence the .in'error, others, alleged plaintiff was arrested. 'On for a habeas for his dis- application corpus ' Circuit Court divided in were charge, judges opinion. This court holds that a thus conspiracy violently expel Chinese from'the and town resided where and did county and thus defeat the business, was not provisions treaty, a hinder force execution aof conspiracy law of the United is declared although treaty Constitution-to be of the land. supreme Under the Constitution, between — and a nation to be considered two aas foreign aspects between the two a law of our compact nations,- country. As a for its enforcement on the compact, faith depends good and to into effect some of its contracting parties, carry For infraction of provisions may require legislation. can afford nó the courts stipulations contract, importing redress such The matter except provided by legislation. one to the executive between by negotiation be.settled depart- *21 v. FRANKS. 703
BALDWIN Opinion: Field, Dissenting J. at lib
ments the two each governments, being government it to take such redress as deem advisa measures erty may Cases, 314; v. Neil 2 Pet. Head 253, ble. Foster son, Money 459; v. 2 In 580, 598; Curtis, 454, 112 U. S. Morton, Taylor 9 306 18 Fed. re Ah S. ; Lung, Sawyer, Rep. C. its own force,
But instances many treaty operates the aid and such is,'without enactment; any legislative case when-it and declares rights generally nation which the citizens each enjoy subjects may the other. This was so with the clause some of country (cid:127) that with their our treaties nations, early European declaring of lands them in the held dispose subjects might United' and that their heirs inherit such States, might property, Thus their thereof, alienage.- proceeds notwithstanding British Great Britain 1794 that' sub .With treaty provided in the American then lands and holding jects should, in the Britain, lands dominions of Great citizens holding and to hold them to the nature tenure continue according titles sell, estates and therein, grant, might respective like manner as or devise same whom they pleased, and that- nor their heirs nor were neither natives, and the lands, as far the said should, assigns respect might Art. incident as aliens. thereto, 9, remedies legal regarded also 122. A the same 8 Stat. clause.to embracing purport, France of art. 1778, in the with movable was property, 182. It 8 in that-of art. 8 Stat. 7, Stat. also 18, 1800, It no force legislation give provision. required t.o Constitution, law the land virtue congres Whenever in could not add efficacy. sional legislation enforced were the alien conferred heirs, voked ; Chirac v. Wheat. Car Chirac, the Federal courts. 9 Wheat. Edwards, 10 Wheat. v. 181; neal v. Banks, Hughes with the Swiss Confederation 496. See also the Treaty S. 483. 100 U. art. Stat. Hauenstine 5, 11 590; Lynham, with for- found in treaties This also some clauses, is so of those citizens nations, subjects eign stipulating for that and, nations trade pur- our with their cargoes, enter ships pose, freely ports TERM, 1886. Field, Opinion: Dissenting *22 reside and do of business here. Thus commerce treaty Italian citi 26, 1871, Italy February provides zens and citizens of United States in States, shall to with their enter, have and Italy, mutually liberty ships all the and of the United States cargoes, ports Italy respec which to tively, commerce. shall open foreign They also have to all and reside in whatever liberty sojourn parts said territories.” Art. Stat. These 1, 17 stipulations oper ate is, their own no by force; they require legislative action for their enforcement. of commerce with Treaty Great Britain of 1815, 1, art. 8 Stat. renewed and continued 228; ; ten art. 4 of 1818, 8 Stat. 249 years and con by treaty tinued 1 of 8 art. thy 1827, Stat. indefinitely by 361; treaty with Bolivia of treaty art. 12 Stat. May 13, 1838, 3, 1009; with Costa Kica of art. treaty 10, 1851, Stat. 2, July 917; of. 1, Greece art. December, 1837, Stat. 498; treaty with Sweden and art. Norway July Stat. 346. or conferred by privilege being treaty, parties to it take whatever to
seeking enjoy necessary steps carry into effect. Those who wish to in com- provisions engage , merce enter our with their and those who ports ships cargoes; wish to reside here select their of residence, no places congres sional to legislation shall being required provide they and All that enjoy can privileges stipulated. and all that ask, is such needed, be neces legislation may to them in such That sary I protect have, enjoyment. think, to some extent, the clause punishing any conspiracy or hinder force the execution of the- United States. The section in clause is a appears reenactment act and 31, 1861, part declares, July other among two more things, conspiracy overthrow force the Government of the United its force force' hin oppose by authority, prevent, der, execution law of delay States,” cmy n force to seize of their possess property against crime, abe for it authority, severe high prescribes As thus punishment. seen, section is not intended as a v.'
BALDWIN FRANKS. 705' Field, Dissenting Opinion: acts of isolated occasional individual against per-' protection For such offences the laws states make- sonal violence. (cid:127) It is intended reach conspiracies provision. against ample Government authority supremacy its laws. .It the enforcement of is directed those who to overthrow1-the conspire not only against govern to defeat the but those also execution of ment, conspire as well statutes, latter treaties laws, including thus others of benefits, deprive permanently rights, to be such intended conferred In the laws.. case before us, conspirators alleged n — the Chinese Nicolaus deprive residing permanently all of Chinese, but that class of *23 any particular —of conferred That is not of residence by treaty. right right it be exercised limited to wherever any place; may particular to reside is lawful for one without encroachment it of others. well knew, every right conspirators equal in of the and its knows, one California provision treaty and their to defeat it. nullify meaning, in a of residence, A no con- conferring .treaty, right requires enforcement of that legislation right; gressional in that is executed the intended benefici- by treaty particular their are not aries. select residence. They They required, in above, to reside do business said any particular place, to a A force residence there. prevent conspiracy by them to to me, town or selected therefore, county appears (cid:127) —(cid:127) that is, be a to the execu- conspiracy prevent operation — a and to be law of within the tion third If of the clause of 5336. letter spirit conspira- § from can the Chinese their residence the town tors expel their, selection without amenable to and county being any' with like .from can, law of exemption the Chinese from the entire state, liability, expel legal defeat, the thus utterly stipulations treaty. a to to force So, also, ships conspiracy prevent by belonging aof nation---not but ships., subjects foreign any particular ship, — our to them from with belonging entering, ports generally be would, cargoes my judgment, conspiracy pre- CXX-^45 VOL. TERM,
J06 Opinion: Dieldj Dissenting - vent force the with that operation -nation, shall have that stipulates its, subjects privilege. And in all , other cases where a clause of treaty conferring
rights its own terms and privileges operates by. does not re- quire congressional effect, a legislation give conspiracy' force their prevent is a enjoyment conspiracy prevent force the execution of a law of the United 'that' States; is, its prevent having, respect rights "privileges effectual I do not stipidated, any see operation. how Con- could matter, do more than it gress, improve has already (cid:127) done, those who thus by declaring force to conspire by deprive conferred parties by treaty should be Its declaration’to that effect would punished. be no more than what present provides.
The last-clause of 5508 declares that “if two or more per- sons on the disguise highway/or lyith- another, or hinder the free intent exercise or enjoyment so secured, Consti- privilege [by tution or laws of the United shall States,] be fined not more than five thousand dollars, hot more imprisoned than ; tenyears shall, moreover, thereafter ineligible office or of honor, or trust created place profit, Consti- tution or laws of the United States.”
I do not of the court the. agree majority clause is limited to offences application only against citi- zens. The first clause of the section is thus limited, but, my *24 the last is more and reaches an judgment, extensive, invasion of the citizen'or one, whether premises alien, two or for the unlawful mentioned. But I more am purpose's . not clear that “in on the qualification going disguise” does not also extend to the on the highway going premises ' — another and thus render the clause case inapplicable before the court; there is much force the view of [hough Mr. Justice Harlan, should be read as clause though , its words “If were: two or more on persons highway or on the with the' another, intent,” disguise, premises ” &c., thus words making disguise apply only offence on the If his view the last be.correct, highway. pro- v:
VITERBO- FRIEDLANDER.
Syllabus. vision of the would clause describe' the exact offence charged error and his plaintiff co-conspirators —that op went of the Chinese with the intent them of deprive conferred privileges — law of the land an which treaty carried intent —the out the Chinese from forcibly the town and expelling of their residence aud business. But county without adopting his I view, rejecting dissent what prefer place my I deem the erroneous. construction of the third court clause of that it does not cover this holding case, but to cases where there has been a applies only forcible resis- tance to measures for the execution adopted of a by Congress ' aor of the law, treaty States.
The result of the decision is, there is no national can be invoked subjects in their China to reside and do business this country, with that notwithstanding language treaty empire. And same result must follow with reference to similar or citizens resident in fights subjects other nation with which we country have like Their forcible stipulations. only protection against any resistance to execution of these in their favor stipplations is to be found in the laws of the states. Such a different result one to be deplored. v. FRIEDLANDER.
VITERBO APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. — 7,1886.
Submitted March Decided March 21, 1887. Louisiana, Rome, following Spain, The' Civil Code of the civil law of and' France, differing law, from the regards years common a lease for bound, thing leased; as a mere transfer of the holds landlord express’ covenant, keep repair without it in fit for otherwise leased, repair the use which it is even When the want of or the ..for so, accident; unfitness is caused an inevitable do and if he does not authorizes the tenant to have the lease annulled or the rent abated.