The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1867-11-15
IMPORTANT DECISION IN THE
SUPREME COURT.

IMPORTANT DECISION IN THE
SUPREME COURT.
THE case of Mary Miles against the
West Chester Railway Company, in the
Supreme Court, came up day before
yesterday, and Judge Agnew gave an
opinion that will be found interesting.
The case was one where the plaintiff
claimed that she was ousted from her
seat in car ON the said road, and elected
from the train on account of her color.
She gained her cause in the lower East
ern courts, but defendants carried 1t to
the supreme Court. The following is
the decision:
Ii is admitted no one can be excluded
from carriage by public carrier on
account of color, religious belief,political
or religious prejudices. But the defend
ants asked the count to say If the seat
which the plaintiff was directed to take
was in all respects II comfortable, safe
and convenient seat, not inferior in any
respect to the one she was directed to
leave, she could not recover The case
therefore involves no assertion of the
inferiority of the negro to the white
passenger. The simple question is,
whether the public carrier may, in the
exercise of his private right ofproperty
separate passengers by any other well
defined characteristic than that of sex.
| The right of the carrier to separate
the passengers is founded on two
grounds-his right to private property
as Il means sofconveyance, and the public
interest. The private means he uses
belong wholly to himself, and implies
the right Of control for the protection OF
his own interest as well as the perfor-
nance of his public duty. 1t is not an
unreasonable regulation TO seat passen-
gers so as to preserve order and decorum
and prevent contact and collision. If
the grounds Of regulation be reasonable,
courts of justice cannot interfere with a
carriers right of private property. The
right of a passenger is only that of being
carried safely and with due regard to
his comfort and convenience, which are
promoted by a sound and well regulated
separation of passengers.
Who would maintain that either at
an inn or on vessel it is reasonable
regulation to compel the passengers,
black and white, to room or bed togeth-
er? 1fa right of private property i'm
plies no right of control, who shall de-
eide contest between passengers for
seats and berths?
Why the Creator made one black and
the other white is not known, the fact
is apparent and the races distinct. Con-
ceding equality with natures as perfect
and rights as sacred, yet God has made
them dissimilar, and impaired to them
features of character intended to imply
that they shall not overstep the natural
boundaries he has assigned to them.
The natural law which forbids their in
termarriage and the social amalgama-
ton which leads to a corruption ofraces,
is clearly divine. The separation of the
white and black races on the surface of
the globe is a fact equally apparent +
The right of each to
be free from social contact is as clear as
their right to be free from intermar-
riage We, there
fore, declare a right to maintain sep
arate relations as far as is reasonably
practicable but in spirit of kindness
and charity, with due regard to equality
and rights.
From the opinion delivered in 1887,
by the late Judge Gibson, it appears
that the status of the negro never fell
within the term "ireemen," and that
the emancipation act of 1888 did not ele-
vate him to citizenship in the State.
In 1888, the people of the common
wealth, by an express amendment OF
their Constitution drew the line directly
between the white citizens and the black
inhabitants of the State. 1t is clear,
therefore, that under its Constitution
t he white and black man stand in sep
arate relations. Never has there been
an intermixture of the two races social
ly, politically, civilly or religiously.
Following these grounds we are com
PEELED to declare that at the time of the
alleged injury there was that natural,
legal and Gus tomary difference between
the black and the white passengers in q
public cconveyance,th the subject of sound
regulation, to secure order, promote
comfort and preserve the peace. The
defendants were, therefore, entitled to
an affirmative answer to the points re-
cited in the opinion.
Judgment reversed. Tenire tacidS de
moro awarded.-PttsJ,0y Post.