Plessy v. Ferguson Briefs Received

Today, the lawyers on both sides of Plessy v. Ferguson, that new case we recently accepted, submitted their briefs for our consideration.

Plessy's lawyer, Albion Tourgée, (and his other lawyer, Samuel Phillips) argued that the Louisiana Separate Car Act, which made his client's actions illegal, was unconstitutional under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment. He wrote eloquently, but his argument was relatively weak. He said that the "spirit" of the Thirteenth Amendment was to give freedom, and forcing them to separate would make them unequal and therefore obstruct this law. While the intention of a law may have been different from its actual text, my job as a Justice is not to interpret feeling but the actual words of a law. The word freedom is nowhere to be seen in the Thirteenth Amendment, so there is no reason for me to believe that this is the goal of this amendment. In addition, Tourgée stated that the Fourteenth Amendment made all blacks equal, and the separate cars were not at all fair. Yes, this amendment accomplished equality, but only in public places. The Fourteenth Amendment states that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"; however it does not say anything about private companies. The East Louisiana Railroad does not belong to the government, so it does not have to follow this amendment. It can easily discriminate against its customers; as we ruled in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, "the Fourteenth Amendment applies to State, not private, [individuals]..."

Albion Tourgée

Ferguson, who was appointed the defendant in the case because he ruled against Plessy in the New Orleans Criminal District Court, argued the law was completely constitutional- all claims Plessy made saying that it violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were false with reasoning similar to mine. He also added that if the black and white cars were separate and had the same resources, there would really be no reason to complain. The only doubt in my mind about this case, referring to a point Tourgée brought up, is that if we cannot be together on traisn, we cannot be together in the country. Yet, again, we will never be completely united, so what is the point?

I feel I am going into this case with my mind already made up. As you can see, I already have a strong opinion.