约翰．马歇尔．哈伦 (JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN)

对普莱西诉弗格森一案裁决的异议 Dissent From Plessy V. Ferguson

根据宪法，从法律上来看，我们国家里不存在什麽上等、优越、 占统治地位的公民阶层。我们国家里没有种族等级制度。我国的宪法规定，人不分肤色一律平等，既没有也不允许在我们的公民中划分等级。

美国南北战争后，原退出联邦的南方各州政府改组后再次加入联邦，白人重新控制了南方的立法机构，并通过了歧视黑人的法律，实行种族隔离和种族歧视。1896年普莱西诉弗格森一案是对该法律的一次重大考验。在审理案件过程中，联邦最高法院作出裁决，维护路易斯安那州关于在铁路上对旅客实行种族隔离的法律。九名大法官中有八人认爲，只要火车上爲白人和黑人提供的设备是平等的，种族隔离就没什麽不对。多数人认爲，“如果黑人要认爲强制性的种族隔离给黑人打上了‘下等人’的烙印，这仅仅是黑人自己要这麽认爲，而不是由于法律中的任何条款造成的。”最高法院的裁决使火车上“隔离但是平等”的做法合法化。由于大部分黑人被剥夺了选举权，在政治上毫无权力，分隔后的设备不平等，也不可能平等。

约翰．马歇尔．哈伦(1833－1911)是唯一的对该案裁决持不同看法的大法官。他因持强有力的不同政见，尤其在有关黑人权利方面的不同政见而享有名望。他对普莱西诉弗格森一案裁决的不同看法曾在二十世纪五十年代初期被美国全国有色人种协进会的律师们引用，成功地在法律上抨击了美国的种族隔离政策。

……关于所有公民都享有的公民权，我认爲美国宪法不允许任何一级政府了解受法律保护享有这些权利的公民的种族背景。每一个真正的人都有民族自豪感，而且在适当的场合，在不侵害同样受法律保护的其它公民权利的情况下，他有权表露这种自豪感，采取他以此爲准则认爲是适当的行动。但是，当涉及到公民的权利时，我认爲任何立法机构或法庭都不应该考虑公民的种族背景。事实上，我们在此所涉及到的路易斯安那州的立法机构的做法不仅违背了联邦与州法律有关公民平等权利的规定，而且还侵犯了美国境内每一个人都可以享有的个人自由……

白种人认爲自己是美国占优势的种族，而实际上白种人也确实在声誉、成就、教育、财富、权势各方面都占了优势。如果白人能够保持其伟大的传统，坚持宪法所制定的自由平等的原则，我并不怀疑白人将会一直保持优势。但是，根据宪法，从法律上来看，我们国家里不存在什麽上等、优越、占统治地位的公民阶层。我们国家里没有种族等级制度，我国的宪法规定；人不分肤色一律平等，既没有也不允许在我们的公民中划分等级。就公民权而言，所有的公民在法律面前一律平等，最卑贱的与最有权势的是同等的公民。当涉及到受本国最高法律保障的公民权时，不论人们的社会背景或肤色如何，我们的法律都把他们作爲公民看待。因此，我感到十分遗憾。我们的最高法庭──具有最高权威宪法解释权的机构──作出了这种裁决，认爲一个州可以以种族爲唯一的依据，限制公民享受公民权。

专横地以种族爲依据，在交通干线上将公民隔离开来，这种做法是对公民的强迫，完全违背了宪法所规定的在法律面前公民自由平等的原则，这是法律所不允许的。假如白人和黑人在爲大家共同利益而兴建的铁路干线上混在一起会导致某些弊端的话，这种弊端也比州立法机构以种族爲依据，限制公民行使公民权所造成的弊端要少得多。我们自映我国人民比其它各国人民享有更充分的自由，可是，我们的自吹很难与我们目前的法律状况相吻合，尤其是当法律给公民中的一大阶层人──在法律面前与我们平等的公民──打上奴隶、下等的印记时，更显得自相矛盾。火车厢里设备“平等”这一层薄薄的僞装不可能给人们造成平等的印象，也不能弥补今天错误的裁决。

. . . 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. . . .