*52

in question do violence to the exclusive | whom each of said cattle was bought, the right of Congress to regulate interstate brands and marks upon each hide, and any commerce? We take judicial notice of the information that may be obtained touchfact that, in the territory of New Mexico, ing the violation by the owner of any such and in other similar parts of the West, slaughterhouse, or any other person, of the cattle are required to be branded in order provisions of an act entitled "An Act for to identify their ownership, and that they the Protection of Stock, and for Other Pur run at large in great stretches of country poses," approved April 1, 1884. For the with no other means of determining their purpose of making the inspection authorseparate ownership than by the brands orized by this act, any inspector employed by marks upon them. In view of these con- the said sanitary board shall have the right siderations, and for the purpose of pro- to enter, in the day or nightime, any tecting the owners of cattle against fraud slaughterhouse or other place where cattle and criminal seizures of their property, the territory of New Mexico has made provision, by means of a system of laws enacted for the purpose, for the protection of the ownership of cattle and the prevention of fraudulent appropriations of this kind of property. The legislation upon the subject in the territory is thus summarized in the opinion, in this case, of the supreme court of New Mexico (78 Pac. 74):

In pari materia with this legislation the act of 1901, now under consideration, was passed. Sections 3 and 4 of that act are as follows:

are killed in this territory, and to carefully examine the same, and all books and records required by law to be kept therein, and to compare the hides found therein with such records' (§ 213). In 1893 it was provided that the cattle sanitary board might fix fees for the inspection of cattle and hides (§ 221) (repealed in 1899 [Laws 1899 chap. 53, p. 107]) and that such fees shall be paid to the secretary of the board and "The first act relating to inspection of placed to the credit of the cattle sanitary hides was passed in 1884, and provided board (§ 222), and shall be used, together that all butchers should keep a record of with funds realized from taxes levied and all animals slaughtered, and keep the hides assessed, or to be levied and assessed, upand horns of such animals for thirty days on cattle only, to defray the expenses of after slaughter, free to the inspection of all the board (§ 220). Chapter 44, p. 94, of persons (Comp. Laws, § 84); and provided the Laws of 1899, makes no changes in the a penalty for failure to keep the record and law material to the consideration of this the hides and horns (§ 86), and a penalty case. Section 2, chap. 53, p. 107, of the for refusal of inspection of the record or Laws of 1899, provides a fee of 3 cents for hides (§ 87). In 1891 all persons were re-inspection of cattle." quired to keep hides for thirty days for the inspection of any sheriff, deputy sheriff, or any constable, or any board or inspector, or any officer authorized to inspect hides (§ 89), and provided a penalty (§ 90). In 1889, amended in 1895 (Laws 1895, chap. 29, § 4, p. 70), a cattle sanitary board was created (§ 183), with power to adopt and enforce quarantine regulations and regulations for the inspection of cattle for sale and slaughter (§ 184), and pay inspectors not to exceed $2.50 per day and their expenses (§ 190). In 1891 the cattle sanitary board was authorized and required to make regulations concerning inspection of cattle for shipment, and hides and slaughterhouses (§ 208), and there was provided the details of arrangement for inspection of cattle (§ 212), and the duties of cattle inspectors were enlarged by providing: 'Every slaughterhouse in this territory shall be carefully inspected by some one of the inspectors aforesaid, and all hides found in such slaughterhouses shall be carefully compared with the records of such slaughterhouses, and a report in writing setting forth the number of cattle killed at any such alaughterhouse since the last inspection, the names of the persons from

"Sec. 3. Hereafter it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to offer," or any railroad company or other common carrier to receive, for the purpose of shipment or transportation beyond the limits of this territory, any hides that have not been inspected and tagged by a duly authorized inspector of the cattle sanitary board of New Mexico, for the district in which such hides originate. For each hide thus inspected there shall be paid by the owner or holder thereof a fee or charge of 10 cents, and such fee or charge shall be a lien upon the hides thus inspected, until the same shall have been paid. Each inspector of hides shall keep a complete record of all inspections made by him, and shall at once forward to the secretary of the cattle sanitary board, on blanks furnished him for that purpose, a complete report of each inspection, giving the names of the purchaser and shipper of the hides, as well as all the brands thereon, which said report shall be preserved by the secretary as a part of the records of his office.

"Sec 4. Any person, firm, or corporation, common carrier, railroad company, or agent thereof, violating any provision of this act, or refusing to permit the inspection of any hides as herein provided, shall, upon conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $1,000 for each and every violation of the provisions of this act."

in the exercise of the police power, and such was the view of Mr. Justice Bradley in Neilson v. Garza, supra, decided on the circuit. We see no reason why an inspection law which has for its purpose the protection of the community against fraud and the promotion of the welfare of the people cannot be passed in the exercise of the police power, when the legislation tends to The purpose of these provisions is appar- subserve the purpose in view. In the terrient, and is to prevent the criminal or tory of New Mexico, and other parts of the fraudulent appropriation of cattle by re- country similarly situated, it is highly esquiring the inspection of hides and regis-sential to protect large numbers of people tration by a record which preserves the against criminal aggression upon this class name of the shipper and purchaser of the of property. The exercise of the police hides, as well as the brands thereon, and by which is afforded some evidence, at least, tending to identify the ownership of the cattle. It is evident that the provision as to the shipment of the hides beyond the limits of the territory is essential to this purpose, for if the hides can be surreptitiously or criminally obtained and shipped beyond such limits, without inspection or registration, a very convenient door is open to the perpetration of fraud and the prevention of discovery.

power may and should have reference to the peculiar situation and needs of the community. The law under consideration, designed to prevent the clandestine removal of property in which a large number of the people of the territory are interested, seems to us an obviously rightful exercise of this power. It is true it affects interstate commerce, but we do not think such was its primary purpose, and while it may have an effect to levy a tax upon this class of property, the main purpose evidently was to It is argued that this act lays a special protect the people against fraud and wrong. burden upon interstate commerce, because, It is further urged that this law is inunder the law, hides not offered for trans-valid because it imposes an unreasonable portation are not required to be inspected fee for the inspection, which goes into the after thirty days in slaughterhouses and treasury of the sanitary board, and the not at all outside of slaughterhouses. But legislation is not void because it meets the exigencies of a particular situation. Other statutory provisions apply to property remaining in the territory, where possibly it may be found and identified. When shipped beyond the limits of the territory the means of reaching it are beyond local control, and it is the purpose of §§ 3 and 4 of the act of 1901 to preserve within the territory a record of the brands identifying the property and naming the purchaser or shipper. Certainly we cannot judicially say that there can be no valid reason for making the inspection in question apply only to hides offered for transportation beyond the territory, and that for that reason the tax is an arbitrary discrimination against interstate traffic.

It is urged further that this is a mere revenue law and in no just sense an inspection law, and, therefore, not within the police power conferred upon the territory. It is true that inspection laws ordinarily have for their object the improvement of quality, and to protect the community against fraud and imposition in the character of the article received for sale or to be exported, but in the Patapsco Case, supra, it was directly recognized that inspection laws such as the one under consideration might be passed

allegations of the writ tend to show that an inspector might make a considerable sum in excess of day's wages in the work of inspecting hides under the provisions of this act. The law being otherwise valid, the amount of the inspection fee is not a judicial question; it rests with the legislature to fix the amount, and it can only present a valid objection when it is shown that it is so unreasonable and disproportionate to the services rendered as to attack the good faith of the law. Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 171 U. S. 345–350, 43 L. ed. 191-193, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 862.

We are of the opinion that the allegations of the relator as to the cost of inspection, compared with the fees authorized to be charged, and the profit which might accrue to the inspector, in view of other and necessary incidental expense connected with the inspection and registration, do not bring the case within that class which holds that, under the guise of inspection, other and different purposes are to be subserved, thus rendering the legislation invalid.

Upon the whole case, we are of the opinion that, in the absence of congressional legislation covering the subject, and making a different provision, the act in controversy is a valid exercise of the police power of the territory, and not in violation of the

Constitution giving exclusive power to | Shelton, being then and there persons of

otherwise, to remove from said place of "Sec. 5508. If two or more persons conbusiness, to stop said work, and to cease the spire to injure, oppress, threaten, or inenjoyment of said right and privilege, and timidate any citizen in the free exercise or by then and there wilfully, deliberately, and enjoyment of any right or privilege secured unlawfully compelling said Berry Winn, to him by the Constitution or laws of the Dave Hinton, Percy Legg, Joe Mardis, Joe United States, or because of his having so McGill, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, and George exercised the same; or if two or more perShelton to quit said work and abandon said sons go in disguise on the highway, or on place and cease the free enjoyment of all the premises of another, with intent to preadvantages under said contracts, the same vent or hinder his free exercise or enjoy. being so done by said defendants and each of ment of any right or privilege so secured,― them for the purpose of driving the said they shall be fined not more than five thouBerry Winn, Dave Hinton, Percy Legg, Joe sand dollars and imprisoned not more than Mardis, Joe McGill, Dan Shelton, Jim Hall, | ten years; and shall, moreover, be thereand George Shelton from said place of busi- after ineligible to any office or place of ness and from their labor because they were honor, profit or trust created by the colored men and citizens of African de- Constitution or laws of the United States." scent, contrary to the form of the statute in "Sec. 5510. Every person who, under color such case made and provided, and against of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, the peace and dignity of the United States." or custom, subjects, or causes to be subA demurrer to this indictment, on the jected, any inhabitant of any state or ground that the offense created by §§ 1977 territory to the deprivation of any rights, and 5508, Rev. Stat. (U. S. Comp. Stat. privileges, or immunities, secured or pro1901, pp. 1259, 3712), under which it was tected by the Constitution and laws of the found, was not within the jurisdiction of United States, or to different punishments, the courts of the United States, but was pains, or penalties, on account of such injudicially cognizable by state tribunals only, habitant being an alien, or by reason of his was overruled, a trial had, and the three color or race, than are prescribed for the plaintiffs in error found guilty, sentenced punishment of citizens, shall be punished separately to imprisonment for different terms and to fine, and to be thereafter ineligible to any office of profit or trust created by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Sections 1977, 1978, 1979, 5508, and 5510 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 1259–1262, 3712, 3713) read as follows:

"Sec. 1977. All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every state and territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

"Sec. 1978. All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not more than one year, or by both."

There being constitutional questions involved, the judgment was brought directly to this court on writ of error.

Messrs. James P. Clarke, L. C. Going, and J. F. Gautney for plaintiffs in error.

Attorney General Moody, Assistant Attorney General Purdy, and Mr. Otis J. Carlton, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:

While the indictment was founded on §§ 1977 and 5508, we have quoted other sections to show the scope of the legislation of Congress on the general question involved.

That prior to the three post bellum amendments to the Constitution the national government had no jurisdiction over a wrong like that charged in this indictment "Sec. 1979. Every person who, under color is conceded; that the 14th and 15th Amendof any statute, ordinance, regulation, cusments do not justify the legislation is also tom, or usage of any state or territory, sub- beyond dispute, for they, as repeatedly held, jects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen are restrictions upon state action, and no of the United States or other person with-action on the part of the state is complained In the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of. Unless, therefore, the 13th Amendment of any rights, privileges, or immunities seeured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proseeding for redress."

vests in the nation the jurisdiction claimed, the remedy must be sought through state action and in state tribunals, subject to the supervision of this court by writ of er ror in proper cases.

In the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. of that Amendment it is well to bear in 36, 76, 21 L. ed. 394, 408, in defining the mind the words of Mr. Chief Justice Marprivileges and immunities of citizens of the shall, in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188, several states, this is quoted from the opin- 6 L. ed. 23, 68, which, though spoken more ion of Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. than four score years ago, are still the rule Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371, Fed. Cas. No. of construction of constitutional provisions: 3230: "As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas

patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said."

The 13th Amendment reads:

"Sec. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

""The inquiry,' he says, 'is, What are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states? We feel no hesitation they intend to convey, the enlightened in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are fundamental; which belong of right to the citizens of all free governments, and which have at all times been enjoyed by citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are, it would be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may all, however, be comprehended under the following general heads: protection by the government, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may prescribe for the general good of the whole."" And after referring to other cases this nunciation. All understand by these terms court added (p. 77, L. ed. p. 409):

"It would be the vainest show of learning to attempt to prove by citations of authority, that up to the adoption of the recent amendments no claim or pretense was set up that those rights depended on the Federal government for their existence or protection, beyond the very few express limitations which the Federal Constitution imposed upon the states,-such, for instance, as the prohibition against ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts. But, with the exception of these and a few other restrictions, the entire domain of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states, as above defined, lay within the constitutional and legislative power of the states, and without that of the Federal government."

Notwithstanding the adoption of these three amendments, the national government still remains one of enumerated powers, and the 10th Amendment, which reads, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people," is not shorn of its vitality. True, the 13th Amendment grants certain specified and additional power to Congress, but any congressional legislation directed against individual action which was not warranted before the 13th Amendment must find authority in it. And in interpreting the scope

"Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The meaning of this is as clear as language can make it. The things denounced are slavery and involuntary servitude, and Congress is given power to enforce that de

a condition of enforced compulsory service of one to another. While the inciting cause of the Amendment was the emancipation of the colored race, yet it is not an attempt to commit that race to the care of the nation. It is the denunciation of a condition, and not a declaration in favor of a particular people. It reaches every race and every individual, and if in any respect it commits one race to the nation, it commits every race and every individual thereof. Slavery or involuntary servitude of the Chinese, of the Italian, of the Anglo-Saxon, are as much within its compass as slavery or involuntary servitude of the African. Of this Amendment it was said by Mr. Justice Miller in Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 69, 21 L. ed. 406: "Its two short sections seem hardly to admit of construction." And again: "To withdraw the mind from the contemplation of this grand yet simple declaration of the personal freedom of all the human race within the jurisdic tion of this government . . requires an effort, to say the least of it."

A reference to the definitions in the dictionaries of words whose meaning is So thoroughly understood by all seems an affectation, yet in Webster slavery is defined as "the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another," and a slave is said to be "a person who is held in bondage to another." Even the secondary meaning given recognizes the fact of subjection, as