約翰‧馬歇爾‧哈倫 (JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN)

對普萊西訴弗格森一案裁決的異議 Dissent From Plessy V. Ferguson

根據憲法，從法律上來看，我們國家裏不存在什麼上等、優越、 佔統治地位的公民階層。我們國家裏沒有種族等級制度。我國的憲法規定，人不分膚色一律平等，既沒有也不允許在我們的公民中劃分等級。

美國南北戰爭後，原退出聯邦的南方各州政府改組後再次加入聯邦，白人重新控制了南方的立法機構，並通過了歧視黑人的法律，實行種族隔離和種族歧視。1896年普萊西訴弗格森一案是對該法律的一次重大考驗。在審理案件過程中，聯邦最高法院作出裁決，維護路易斯安那州關於在鐵路上對旅客實行種族隔離的法律。九名大法官中有八人認為，只要火車上為白人和黑人提供的設備是平等的，種族隔離就沒什麼不對。多數人認為，「如果黑人要認為強制性的種族隔離給黑人打上了『下等人』的烙印，這僅僅是黑人自己要這麼認為，而不是由於法律中的任何條款造成的。」最高法院的裁決使火車上「隔離但是平等」的做法合法化。由於大部分黑人被剝奪了選舉權，在政治上毫無權力，分隔後的設備不平等，也不可能平等。

約翰‧馬歇爾‧哈倫(1833－1911)是唯一的對該案裁決持不同看法的大法官。他因持強有力的不同政見，尤其在有關黑人權利方面的不同政見而享有名望。他對普萊西訴弗格森一案裁決的不同看法曾在二十世紀五十年代初期被美國全國有色人種協進會的律師們引用，成功地在法律上抨擊了美國的種族隔離政策。

……關於所有公民都享有的公民權，我認為美國憲法不允許任何一級政府瞭解受法律保護享有這些權利的公民的種族背景。每一個真正的人都有民族自豪感，而且在適當的場合，在不侵害同樣受法律保護的其他公民權利的情況下，他有權表露這種自豪感，採取他以此為準則認為是適當的行動。但是，當涉及到公民的權利時，我認為任何立法機構或法庭都不應該考慮公民的種族背景。事實上，我們在此所涉及到的路易斯安那州的立法機構的做法不僅違背了聯邦與州法律有關公民平等權利的規定，而且還侵犯了美國境內每一個人都可以享有的個人自由……

白種人認為自己是美國佔優勢的種族，而實際上白種人也確實在聲譽、成就、教育、財富、權勢各方面都佔了優勢。如果白人能夠保持其偉大的傳統，堅持憲法所制定的自由平等的原則，我並不懷疑白人將會一直保持優勢。但是，根據憲法，從法律上來看，我們國家裏不存在什麼上等、優越、佔統治地位的公民階層。我們國家裏沒有種族等級制度，我國的憲法規定；人不分膚色一律平等，既沒有也不允許在我們的公民中劃分等級。就公民權而言，所有的公民在法律面前一律平等，最卑賤的與最有權勢的是同等的公民。當涉及到受本國最高法律保障的公民權時，不論人們的社會背景或膚色如何，我們的法律都把他們作為公民看待。因此，我感到十分遺憾。我們的最高法庭──具有最高權威憲法解釋權的機構──作出了這種裁決，認為一個州可以以種族為唯一的依據，限制公民享受公民權。

專橫地以種族為依據，在交通幹線上將公民隔離開來，這種做法是對公民的強迫，完全違背了憲法所規定的在法律面前公民自由平等的原則，這是法律所不允許的。假如白人和黑人在為大家共同利益而興建的鐵路幹線上混在一起會導致某些弊端的話，這種弊端也比州立法機構以種族為依據，限制公民行使公民權所造成的弊端要少得多。我們自映我國人民比其他各國人民享有更充分的自由，可是，我們的自吹很難與我們目前的法律狀況相吻合，尤其是當法律給公民中的一大階層人──在法律面前與我們平等的公民──打上奴隸、下等的印記時，更顯得自相矛盾。火車廂裏設備「平等」這一層薄薄的偽裝不可能給人們造成平等的印象，也不能彌補今天錯誤的裁決。

. . . 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. . . .