490 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
The extended latter part of his opinion, in its argument to show 
that the general public had rights in the use of inns, public convey- 
ances and public places of amusement seems beside the point. He 
has no difficulty in showing the large extent to which legislation as 
to all of them had been enacted, and how thoroughly they are 
within the grasp of public power. But the question was not as to the 
right to legislate on these subjects. The question was whether that 
right was vested in Congress or in the state legislatures. Its posses- 
sion by the latter is made by Judge Bradley the ground for denying 
it to the former. 
He once more questions the doctrine of the slaughter-house cases 
that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States 
referred to in the fourteenth amendment are only such as the con- 
stitution of the United States in terms or by distinct implication 
confers. He declares that the enjoyment of the rights sought to be 
vindicated in the civil rights bill, are among those included. 
The weakness of his position appears when he asserts that these 
rights are as much secured to the negro by the thirteenth as the 
right of suffrage is by the fifteenth amendment. ‘The prompt an- 
swer to which is, as the court had aiready held, no right of suffrage 
is secured to the negro by the fifteenth amendment ; only that it 
shall not be denied him on account of his race and it is expressly 
named. 
That the men who passed the civil rights bill and secured the 
adoption of the constitutional amendments thought they were ob- 
taining for Congress the power to legislate over these subjects, is 
indubitable. To secure their adoption, however, they were 
couched in such general terms that the interpretation given to them 
in the Slaughter-House cases was inevitable when they fell into such 
able conservative hands as Judge Miller’s. 
His refusal to see in the privileges and immunities secured to each 
citizen by them any more than what the former interpretation of 
the constitution had placed among its guarantees, or to find any 
prohibition on legislation by the state with regard to their own citi- 
zens except what was plainly declared in the amendment, was 
clearly necessary to maintain the position of the state governments 
and prevent the lapsing of practically all legislative power over per- 
sonal and property rights into the hands of Congress. 
The alternative is that contended for by Judge Harlan in this case. 
“‘T venture, with all respect for the opinion of others, to insist that the 
