A NEW NATION. 311 members of the Supreme Court — viz. Chief Justice Chase, Mr. Justice Field, Mr. Justice Swayne, and Mr. Justice Bradley — dis- sented from the decision of the majority of the court, and three of them wrote dissenting opinions taking a very different view of the scope and effect of the said Amendments. The majority of the court consisted of Justices Clifford, Miller, Davis, Strong, and Hunt. Mr. Justice Field in his dissenting opinion, which was concurred in by the other dissenting judges, says (pp. 89, 93, 95) : — "The question presented is therefore one of the gravest importance, not merely to the parties here, but to the whole country. It is nothing less than the question whether the recent Amendments to the Federal Constitution protect the citizens of the United States against the depri- vation of their common rights by State legislation. In my judgment the Fourteenth Amendment does afford such protection, and was so intended by the Congress which framed and the States which adopted it. . . . The Amendment [XIV.] was adopted to obviate objections which had been raised and pressed with great force to the validity of the Civil Rights Act, and to place the common rights of American citizens under the protection of the National Government. It first declares that ' 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.' It then declares that ^ 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.' ... A citizen of a State is now only a citizen of the United States residing in that State. The fundamental rights, privileges, and immunities which belong to him as a free man and a free citizen now belong to him as a citizen of the United States, and are not dependent upon his citizenship of any State. . . . The Amendment does not attempt to confer any new privileges or immunities upon citizens, or to enumerate or define those already existing. It assumes that there are such privileges and immuni- ties which belong of right to citizens as such, and ordains that they shall not be abridged by State legislation." Mr. Justice Bradley in his dissenting opinion in the same case (p. 121) says : —
- 'Can the Federal Courts administer relief to citizens of the United
States whose privileges and immunities have been abridged by a State? Of this I entertain no doubt. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment this could not be done, except in a few instances, for the want of the requi- 41
