◆ SpookStack

we ae et néecome necessary to the grant of elicctive relief“. The defendants’ MS anterference with the right of Negrucs to use puhjic facilities in Zegaluea is relevant to the cause of action, for that interference Vas part of a pattern and practice of total resistance to the Negroes'- exercise of civil rights. (3) In sum, in the Civil Bic.ts Acts of 1957 and 1964, Congress recongnized that when a Negro is clubbed or coerced for having ted te register or for having entered a “white” restauran che action most likely to produce effective relief is not necessarily for the Negro to complain to tne local police or to sue for damages er to make charges under 18 USC 241, 242. The most effective relief for him and for all others affectec by the intimidation may be an _injunetion by the Nation against the private persons responsible for siterfering with his civil rights. Effectiveness of remecy is not the only reason for the Congressional grant of authority to the Attorney General-of the United States. The Nation has a responsibility to supply a meaningfu} remedy for a right it ereates or guarantees. As Justice Story wrote, “in sustaining the constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793: "Tf, indeed, the constitution guarantees the right, and if it requires the delivery foi the fugitive slave] upon the claim of the owner . . ., the natural inference cer- tainly is, that the nectionil government is clothed with the appropriate authority inc functions to enforce it. The fundamental principle, aspiicable to all cases of this sort, would seem to be, that when the end is required, the means are given. . ." Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 1842, 41 U.S. {17 Pet.) 539, 614. a TT , . ones - 2 2 . =t is one thing when acts are mere invasions of private rights; "it is nL cuite a different matter when Congress undertakes to protect the citi ‘cen in the exercise of rights conferred by the Constitution of the United States essential to the healthy organization of the government .tself". Ex parte Yarbrough, 1884, 110 U.S. 651, "665, 4 5,ct. 152, , . u8 L.Ed, 274.j We turn now to the defendants’ constitutional arguments. ~ 2g -