1900.) HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. 487 
tified such disagreement to the Supreme Court. The Supreme 
Court held that the fifteenth amendment had no relation to the 
case ; that the fourteenth had no more, because it served only asa 
restraint upon state and not upon private action ; that the thirteenth 
could not uphold the statute, as the latter related to conspiring for 
other purposes as well as such as were connected with that amend- 
ment, and was by no means confined to attempts to enforce slavery 
or involuntary servitude, and it was therefore unconstitutional. 
That the fourteenth amendment, in subjecting the exercise of 
police powers by the state to the supervision of the federal Supreme 
Court had not essentially reduced them was again shown in * Esca- 
naba and Lake Michigan Transportation Company ws. The City of 
Chicago. The steamships of the plaintiff company, in carrying iron 
ores up the Chicago river, found themselves inconvenienced by 
certain ordinances of the city which reauired drawbridges over the 
river to be closed from six to seven o’clock in the morning and 
from 5.30 to 6.30 in the evening, and between those hours not to 
be kept open while passengers were waiting to cross longer than ten 
minutes at a time, and when closed to remain so for twenty min- 
utes if needed to accommodate passengers. 
The regulation was found by the court to be a reasonable one, 
and though the stream was held a navigable river, Congress not hav- 
ing acted on the matter, the authority of the city unquestionable. 
A long line of federal authorities, among which Chief Justice 
Marshall’s opinion in * Wilson vs. Blackbird Creek Marsh Company 
and Justice Curtis’ in * Gilman vs. Philadelphia were foremost, were 
cited. 
In October, 1883, the five cases known as the Civil Rights cases 
were decided. ‘Two of them, the * United States vs. Stanley and 
the United States ws. Nichols, were for refusing colored persons 
hotel accommodations. Two of them, the United States vs. Ryan 
and United States vs. Singleton, were for refusing accommodation 
in theatres, and the other, Robinson and Wife vs. Memphis, etc., 
Railway Co., was for refusing to let the wife ride in the ladies’ car 
on defendant’s road, as she claimed, because of her African 
descent. 
The Stanley case came on a certificate of difference of opinion 
from United States Circuit Court of Kansas; the case vs. Nichols 
1107 Us S,, O78€1 S83), oo Wally ya3 
se) RA SODLO San 3. 
PROC. AMER. PHILOS. SOC. XXXIX. 163. FF. PRINTED OCT. 22, 1900. 
