Constitution were adopted to secure not only their freedom, but their
equal civil rights, and by ratifying the amendments the several States
conceded to the Federal government the power and authority of maintaining
not alone their freedom, but their equal civil rights in the United States
as well.

The Federal Supreme Court put a narrow interpretation on the Constitution,
rather than a liberal one in favor of equal rights; in marked contrast to
a recent decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New
York in a civil rights case arising under the statute of New York, Burks
vs. Bosso, 81 N.Y. Supp, 384. The New York Supreme Court held this
language: "The liberation of the slaves, and the suppression of the
rebellion, was supplemented by the amendments to the national Constitution
according to the colored people their civil rights and investing them with
citizenship. The amendments indicated a clear purpose to secure equal
rights to the black people with the white race. The legislative intent
must control, and that may be gathered from circumstances inducing the
act. Where that intent has been unvaryingly manifested in one direction,
and that in the prohibition of any discrimination against a large class of
citizens, the courts should not hesitate to keep apace with legislative
purpose. We must remember that the slightest trace of African blood places
a man under the ban of belonging to that race. However respectable and
whatever he may be, he is ostracized socially, and when the policy of the
law is against extending the prohibition of his civil rights, a liberal,
rather than a narrow interpretation should be given to enactments
evidencing the intent to eliminate race discrimination, as far as that
can be accomplished by legislative intervention."

The statutory enactments and recent Constitutions of most of the former
slave-holding States, show that they have never looked with favor upon the