|
’翰’馬歇爾’’’ (JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN) 對普萊’’弗’森’’裁’’異議 Dissent From Plessy V. Ferguson’據憲’’’’’’’’’我們國’裏不’’什麽’等’’’’ ’統’’’’公民階’’我們國’裏’有種族等’’’’我國’憲’’’’’不分膚’’’平等’’’有’不允’’我們’公民中劃分等’’ ’國’’戰’’’原’’’邦’’方’’’’改組’’次’’’邦’白’重’控’’’方’立’機’’’’’’’視黑’’’’’實’種族’離’種族’視’1896’普萊’’弗’森’’’對該’’’’次重’考驗’’’’’件’’中’’邦最高’’’’裁’’維’路’斯’那’關’’’路’對’’實’種族’離’’’’’’’’’中有’’’爲’’’’車’爲白’’黑’提’’’備’平等’’種族’離’’什麽不對’’數’’爲’“’’黑’’’爲’’’’種族’離給黑’打’’‘’等’’’’’’’僅僅’黑’’’’’麽’爲’而不’由’’’中’任’條款’成’’”最高’’’裁’’’車’“’離’’平等”’做’’’化’由’’部分黑’’剝奪’選’’’’’’’’’’’’分’’’’備不平等’’不’’平等’ ’翰’馬歇爾’’’(1833－1911)’唯’’對該’裁’’不’’’’’’’’’’’’有’’不’’見’尤’’有關黑’’’方面’不’’見而’有’望’’對普萊’’弗’森’’裁’’不’’’曾’’’’’五’’’’期’’國’國有’’種’’’’’’們引用’成’’’’’’’擊’’國’種族’離’策’ ’’關’’有公民都’有’公民’’我’爲’國憲’不允’任’’’’’’解’’’’’’有’’’’’公民’種族’景’’’個’正’’都有民族’豪’’而’’’當’場’’’不’’’樣’’’’’’’’公民’’’情’’’’有’’’’種’豪’’採’’’’爲準’’爲’’當’’動’’’’當’及’公民’’’’’我’爲任’立’機’’’’都不應該考’公民’種族’景’’實’’我們’’’’及’’路’斯’那’’立’機’’做’不僅’’’’邦’’’’有關公民平等’’’’’’而’還’犯’’國境內’’個’都’’’有’個’’由’’ 白種’’爲’’’’國’’勢’種族’而實際’白種’’’實’’’’成’’教’’’’’’勢’方面都’’’勢’’’白’’夠’’’偉’’傳統’堅’憲’’’’’’由平等’原’’我’不’疑白’’’’’’’’勢’’’’’據憲’’’’’’’’’我們國’裏不’’什麽’等’’’’’統’’’’公民階’’我們國’裏’有種族等’’’’我國’憲’’’’’不分膚’’’平等’’’有’不允’’我們’公民中劃分等’’’公民’而言’’有’公民’’’面’’’平等’最’賤’’最有’勢’’’等’公民’當’及’’本國最高’’’障’公民’’’不論’們’’’’景’膚’’’’我們’’’都把’們’爲公民’’’’’’我’’’分遺憾’我們’最高’’’’’有最高’’憲’解釋’’機’’’’’’’種裁’’’爲’個’’’’種族爲唯’’’據’限’公民’’公民’’ ’橫’’種族爲’據’’交’’’’’公民’離’’’’種做’’對公民’’迫’完’’’’憲’’’’’’’’面’公民’由平等’原’’’’’’’不允’’’假’白’’黑’’爲’’’’’’而興’’’路’’’’’’’’導’’’弊端’話’’種弊端’比’立’機’’種族爲’據’限’公民’’公民’’’成’弊端’少’’’我們’’我國’民比’’’國’民’有’’分’’由’’’’我們’’’’難’我們目’’’’’’’’’’尤’’當’’給公民中’’’階’’’’’’’面’’我們平等’公民’’打’奴隸’’等’’’’’’顯’’’矛’’’車’裏’備“平等”’’’薄薄’僞裝不’’給’們’成平等’’’’’不’彌補今天錯’’裁’’ . . . In respect of civil rights, common to all citizens, the Constitution of the United States does not, I think, permit any public authority to know the race of those entitled to be protected in the enjoyment of such rights. Every true man has pride of race, and under appropriate circumstances when the rights of others, his equals before the law, are not to be affected, it is his privilege to express such pride and to take such action based upon it as to him seems proper. But I deny that any legislative body or judicial tribunal may have regard to the race of citizens when the civil rights of those citizens are involved. Indeed, such legislation, as that here in question, is inconsistent not only with that equality of rights which pertains to citizenship, National and State, but with the personal liberty enjoyed by every one within the United States.... The white race deems itself to be the domi- nant race in this country. And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time, if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty. But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. It is, therefore, to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a State to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race. . . . The arbitrary separation of citizens, on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution. It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds. If evils will result from the commingling of the two races upon public highways established for the benefit of all, they will be infinitely less than those that will surely come from state legislation regulating the enjoyment of civil rights upon the basis of race. We boast of the freedom enjoyed by our people above all other peoples. But it is difficult to reconcile that boast with a state of the law which, practically, puts the brand of servitude and degradation upon a large class of our fellow-citizens, our equals before the law. The thin disguise of "equal" accommodations for passengers in railroad coaches will not mislead any one, nor atone for the wrong this day done. . . . ’ |