erform than to execute the legislative will, without regard to their
views as to the wisdom or justice of the particular enactment."
"Statutes," said Justice Harlan, "must always have a reasonable
construction. Sometimes they are to be construed strictly; sometimes,
liberally, in order to carry out the legislative will. But, however
construed, the intent of the legislature is to be respected."

The decisions in the cases of _M. K. and T. Railway_ v. _Haber_[36]
and _Crutcher_ v. _Kentucky_,[37] are of some importance. In these
cases the court reiterated the doctrine that the regulation of the
enjoyment of the relative rights and the performance of the duties, of
all persons within the jurisdiction of a State belong primarily to
such a State under its reserved power to provide for the safety of all
persons and property within its limits; and that even if the subject
of such regulations be one that may be taken under the exclusive
control of Congress, and be reached by national legislation, any
action taken by the State upon that subject that does not directly
interfere with rights secured by the Constitution of the United States
or by some valid act of Congress, must be respected until Congress
intervenes.[38] The court by this time, however, had all but held that
the Constitution secured to the Negro no civil or political rights
except that of exemption from involuntary servitude, and that law for
the Negro is the will of the white man.

Further development of the doctrine as to the right of the State to
deprive a Negro of citizenship is brought out in the _Lauder
Case_.[39] The case was this: Lauder's wife purchased a first class
ticket from Hopkinsville to Mayfield, both places within the State of
Kentucky. She took her place in what was called the "ladies' coach"
and was ejected therefrom by the conductor and assigned a seat in a
smoking car, which was alleged to be small, badly ventilated, unclean
and fitted with greatly inferior accommodations. This road ran from
Evansville, Indiana, to Hopkinsville, Kentucky. It was held in the
Court of Appeals that the decision of the United States Supreme Court
in _Louisville, New Orleans and Railway_ v. _Mississippi_[40] and
_Plessy_ v. _Ferguson_[41] was conclusive of the constitutionality of
the act so far as the plaintiffs were concerned; and that the mere
fact that the railroad extended to Evansville, in the State of
Indiana, could in no wise render the statute in question