CNITED STATES V. BUNTIN. 739 �as " a grand or petit juror in any court of the United States, or of any state, on accouut of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," and prescribing a penalty for such exclusion, refers to action by an agency of the state, and is within the power granted by the fourteenth amendment. Virginia v. Rives, Strauder v, West Virginia, Ex parte Virginia, and Neal v. Delaware, supra. As to indictment of offlcers for violation of this section, see Re Co. Judges of Virginia, 3 Hughes, 576. �4. CmNESB. Although, as expressed in the Slaughter-house Cases, the war amendments vsrere adopted primarily for the emancipation and protection of the African race, their power is not circumscribed to such limits. They have already, and will in the future, serve a vastly wider and more beneflcent pur- pose. The prohibitions of the fourteenth amendment have been f ouud effectuai to protect the Chinaman against the Viciously-oppressive legislation of the Pacific States. ihe opinions of the federal judges, and particularly of Justice Field, in the cases cited below, are admirable illustrations of the substantial progress made towards broad and enlightened views of human rights and equality. Thua the San Francisco " Queue Ordinance," providing that pris- oners in the county jail shall have their hair clipped to a uniform length of one ineh from the scalp, being directed especially against the Chinese, and in- flicting a cruel and degrading punishment upon them, {Ah Kow v. Nunan, 5 Savsry. 552, Field, J.; S. C. 18 Am. Law Eeg. H. S. 676, and note by Judge Cooley;) the statute of Californiaprohibiting all aliens incapable of beeoming electors of the state from flshing in the waters of the state, {In re Ah Chong^ �2 Fed. Eep. 733, Sawyer, J. ;) the statute of California requiring a bond to be given that Chinese emigrants shall not become a charge upon the public, {Re Ah Fong, 3 Sawy. 144, Field, 3. ;) the constitution and statute of California forbidding the employment of Chinese or Mongolians by corporations, and punishing any offlcer or agent thereof who hires them, {In re Parrott, 1 Fed. Rep. 481, Hoffman, J.,) — have all been held to be in conflict wlth the four- teenth amendment and void. �5. MisOEGENATiON. The laws of the southern states forbidding the mar- riage of white and coloi-ed persons have been held not to be obnoxious to the fourteenth amendment. Ex parte Kinney, 3 Hughes, 9 ; Ex parte Francois, �3 "Woods, 367; Ex parte Hobbs & Johnson, 1 Woods, 537; &oss v. State, (Sup. et. Tenn. Oct. 1880,) 24 Alb. L. J. 118. See 1 Bishop, Mar. & Div. § 308 et seq. The imposition of a severer penalty on a man and woman of different races for living together in adultery or fornication than that im- posed for the same offence upon persons of the same race, does not contravene the fourteenth amendment and civil rights act. 6h'ee7i v. State, 58 Ala. 190; overruling Burns v. State, 48 Ala. 195. �6. Traveling Accomodations. The provisions of the civil rights act of March 1, 1875, (18 St. at Large, 336,) have been referred to heretofore in section 3 of this note. Independent of such statute, (to use the language of Judge Cooley,) " it is not very clear that inn-keepers and carriers of persons by land or by water would be warranted in law in discriminating on the ground solely of a difference in race, color, or because of any previous condition." They are public servants, and are only permitted to make discriminations which are ��� �
