given to Congress to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation. Such legislation must act upon persons, not upon the abstract thing denominated a State, but upon the persons who are the agents of the State in the denial of the rights which were intended to be secured. Such is the Act of March 1, 1875, 18 Stat. at L. 336, and we think it was fully authorized by the Constitution. We do not perceive how holding an office under a State and claiming to act for the State can relieve the holder from the obligation to obey the Constitution of the United States, or take away the power of Congress to punish his disobedience.18

18 In this case Justice Field rendered a dissenting opinion, in which he assumed, in the first place, that so much of the Act of 1875 as attempted to regulate the selection of jurors in state courts was unconstitutional and void; in the second place, that the selection of jurors by the judge was a judicial act involving an exercise of discretion and judgment, and, therefore, not subject to enforcement in a particular manner by statute or mandamus, in any event; and, in the third place, that the right to serve as a juror is a political and not a civil right, and therefore not one, the equal enjoyment of which is secured to all by the Fourteenth Amendment. With reference to the purpose for which the war amendments had been adopted Justice Field said: They do not, in terms, contravene or repeal anything which previously existed in the Constitution and those Amendments. Aside from the extinction of slavery, and the declaration of citizenship, their provisions are merely prohibitory upon the States; and there is nothing in their language or purpose which indicates that they are to be construed or enforced in any way different from that adopted with reference to previous restraints upon the States. The provision authorizing Congress to enforce them by appropriate legislation does not enlarge their scope, nor confer any authority which would not have existed independently of it. No legislation would be appropriate which should contravene the express prohibitions upon Congress previously existing, as, for instance, that it should not pass a bill of attainder or an ex post facto law. Nor would legislation be appropriate which should conflict with the implied prohibitions upon Congress. They are as obligatory as the express prohibitions. The Constitution, as already stated, contemplates the existence and independence of the States in all their reserved powers. . . . I cannot think I am mistaken in saying that a change so radical in the relation between the federal and state authorities, as would justify legislation interfering with the independent action of the different departments of the state governments, in all matters over which the States retain jurisdiction, was never contemplated by the recent Amendments. The people, in adopting them, did not suppose that they were altering the fundamental theory of their dual system of gov. ernments."

These general principles that the prohibitions of the Amendment are upon the State and not upon individuals; that Congress has no primary and direct legislative authority to define and enforce the rights guaranteed by the Amendment; that the general "police powers" are still possessed by the States; - have not been departed from by the court in subsequent cases. In Logan v. United States,19 decided in 1892, the court, after a review of previous adjudications, say: "The whole scope and effect of this series of decisions is that, certain fundamental rights, recognized and declared, but not granted or created in some of the Amendments to the Constitution, are thereby guaranteed only against violation or abridgement by the United States or by the States, as the case may be, and cannot, therefore, be affirmatively enforced by Congress against unlawful acts of individuals." The court, however, add the cautionary remark that "every right created by, arising under or dependent upon the Constitution of the

"It is impossible

Some commentators have found difficulty in harmonizing the decision in Ex parte Virginia with that rendered in Virginia v. Rives. Thus, for example, Wise in his Treatise on American Citizenship, p. 205, says: to reconcile the decision in Ex parte Virginia with the others. . . . As they stand the two cases of Virginia v. Rives and Ex parte Virginia present an amusing line of demarcation. In Virginia v. Rives the misconduct of a sheriff in the method of summoning a jury was declared not to be the action of the State and to be remediable on appeal. In the case of Ex parte Virginia, decided on the same day, the misconduct of a judge in not summoning a proper jury was held to be the action of the State, remediable by the indictment of the judge although the State had done no wrong. The only legal principle to be deduced from the two decisions is that the boundary line between one officer who is the State and an officer who is not the State, lies somewhere between a sheriff and a judge."

There is, however, no real incongruity in the cases, and Wise's difficulty arises from an imperfect understanding of the actual point decided in Virginia v. Rives. In that case, it was held, as we have seen, simply that the case did not come within the section 641 of the Revised Statutes, under which removal had been had from the state to the federal courts. Thus, in effect, all the court decided was, not that Congress had no power under the Fourteenth Amendment to punish or correct such an act as that of the sheriff complained of, but that it had not, in fact, so legislated. In Ex purte Virginia the act complained of was construed to be within the scope of the prohibitions of the Act of Congress of 1875.

19 144 U. S. 263; 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617; 36 L. ed. 429.

United States, may be protected and enforced by Congress by such means and in such manner as Congress, in the exercise of the correlative duty of protection, or of the legislative powers conferred upon it by the Constitution may in its discretion seem most eligible and best adapted to attain the object."

See also in James v. Bowman,20 decided as late as 1903, the cases are re-examined and the principles declared in them fully approved.

Although by the decision in the Slaughter House and subsequent cases in the Supreme Court, the command laid upon the States to respect federal privileges and immunities has thus been shorn of all but declaratory significance, and the general police powers confirmed in the Commonwealths, the other prohibitions of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment have been so construed by the Supreme Court as to give to the Federal Government a very extensive supervisory jurisdiction over state legislation which it did not possess prior to 1868. Whenever a claim has been made that a state law has worked a deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or has resulted in a denial to any person of the equal protection of the laws, the federal courts have assumed jurisdiction and declared such statutes void. Illustrations of this federal supervisory power will appear throughout this treatise.

It is true that, in the Slaughter House Cases, the court declared, relative to the clause providing for the equal protection of the laws: "We doubt very much whether any action of a State not directed by way of discrimination against the negroes as a class, or on account of their race, will ever be held to come within the purview of this provision," but this obiter dictum has been repeatedly overruled.

- 190 U. S. 127; 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 678; 47 L. ed. 979, as to the power of forgress to provide for the punishment of individuals interfering with, or Golspiring to interfere with the exercise by others of rights created by or siejament upon the federal constitution or laws, see Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 FS 651; 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152; 28 L. ed. 274; U. S. v. Waddell, 112 U. S. 76. 5 up. Ct. Rep. 35: 28 L. ed. 673; Motes v. U. S., 178 U. S. 458; 20 Sup. CL. Rep. 993; 44 L. ed. 1150.

§ 90. Summary.

By way of résumé we may say that, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment has not brought about any fundamental change in our constitutional system. No new subjects have been brought within the sphere of direct control of the Federal Government. No new privileges and immunities of federal citizenship have been created or recognized. To Congress has been given no new direct primary, legislative power. It has not been authorized by the Amendment to determine and define the privileges and immunities of federal citizens, nor to define and affirmatively to provide for the protection of the rights of life, liberty, and property, nor by direct legislation to enumerate and describe the privileges which shall constitute the equal protection of the laws. The only legislative power granted to Congress by the Amendment, is the power to provide modes of relief in cases where the States have deprived individuals or corporations of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied to anyone within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The supervisory powers of the federal courts has been enormously increased; as, by the Amendment, they may examine every claim of illegal violations by States. of the prohibitions laid upon them by the Amendment, and where the claim is sustained grant the necessary relief, either by the issuance of the appropriate writ, or by holding void the offending state laws. In fine, then, the Fourteenth Amendment has operated rather as a limitation upon the powers of the States than as a grant of additional powers to the General Government.

13

CHAPTER XII.
FAITH

INTERSTATE RELATIONS; FULL AND CREDIT CLAUSE.

§ 91. States Independent of One Another.

In the chapters which have been gone before the constitutional relations which exist between the Federal Government upon the one side and the State upon the other side have been considered. In the present chapter a description will be given of the relations which exist between the several States.

Except as otherwise specifically provided by the federal Constitution, the States of the American Union, when acting within the spheres of government reserved to them, stand toward one another as independent and wholly separated States. The laws of the State have no force, and their officials have here no public authority, outside of their own territorial boundaries. As to all these matters their relations inter se are governed by the general principles of Private International Law or, as otherwise termed, the Conflict of Laws.

During the colonial period the judgments of the courts of the colonies were, as to one another, strictly foreign judgments. That is, they could be impeached for fraud or prejudice, and their merits re-examined. The inconvenience of this state of affairs was soon recognized, and in the Articles of Confederation it was provided that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State." The important difference between this provision and the corresponding one in the present Constitution is that in the latter Congress is given authority to fix by statute the manner in which these acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved and to determine the effect that shall be given them.

1 Article IV.