if not obnoxious to some other constitutional provision or
destructive of some right secured by the fundamental law, are to be
respected in the courts of the Union until they are superseded and
displaced by some act of Congress passed in execution of power granted
to it by the Constitution. Of course, there was no other provision to
which such laws could be contrary after the Supreme Court had whittled
away the war amendments.

In the case of _Plessy_ v. _Ferguson_[35] the most inexcusable
inconsistency of the court was shown when the persons of color
aggrieved attacked the separate car law of Louisiana on the ground
that it conflicted with the Fourteenth Amendment. Giving the opinion
of the court, Justice Brown said: "So far, then, as a conflict with
the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned, the case reduces itself to the
question whether the statute of Louisiana is a reasonable regulation,
and with respect to this there must necessarily be a large discretion
on the part of the legislature. In determining the question of
reasonableness it is at liberty to act with reference to the
established usages, customs and traditions of the people, and with a
view to the promotion of the public peace and good order. Gauged by
this standard, we cannot say that a law which authorizes or even
requires the separation of the two races in public conveyances is
unreasonable, or more obnoxious to the Fourteenth Amendment than the
acts of Congress requiring separate schools for colored children in
the District of Columbia, the constitutionality of which does not seem
to have been questioned or the corresponding acts of State
legislatures."

Justice Harlan dissented, saying that he was of the opinion that the
Statute of Louisiana is inconsistent with personal liberty of white
and black in that State and hostile to both in the letter and spirit
of the Constitution of the United States. Justice Harlan rightly
contended that laws can have no regard to race according to the
Constitution. If they do, they conflict with the rights of State and
national citizenship and with personal liberty. The Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Amendments removed race from our governmental system. But
what has the court to do with the policy or expediency of legislation?
"A statute may be valid, and yet upon grounds of public policy, may
well be characterized as unreasonable." Accordingly Mr. Sedgwick, a
distinguished authority, says: "The Courts have no other duty to
p