Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-11-16
Radical LesI.latIon Suspended i'm


Radical Legislation Suspended In
Pennsylvania Negroes i'm The
Cars.
Some months ago in the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas, Judge ALLISON
charged a jury, In the case of colored
woman against a conductor of a railroad
train, philadelphia and West Chester.)
who had put her off the train because she
refused to sit where he directed her, that
he was liable to damages for the assault
The jury gave the sum of $500 damages.
An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court.
On Monday last Judge AGNEw delivered
the opinion of the Supreme Court, rever-
sing the decision of Judge ALLISON. Judge
AGNEw is Republican, was elected by the
Republican party, but he is also lawyer of
high character, and great moral rectitude as
a man. He does not believe in the mix
ture of races, nor in forcing negro into
the society of the white race, whether in
cars, or churches or anywhere else. His
opinion in this case covers the whole
fled. with its marked ability. Judge AG-
NEW redsons on this question, and reaches
that conviction that all logical minds must
reach who reason about it. The negro
race God has marked as separate and dis
tinct people, and this cannot be ignored by
the teachings of fanatics or fools, and so
the learned Judge decides. The Radicals
are very much excited over this opinion of
Republican judge. The following decis-
ion tells the whole story: H
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 a car on the said road, and
elected from the train on account of her
fcolor. She gained her cause in the lower
Eastern courts, but defendants carried it
to the Supreme Court. The following is
the decision:
1t is admitted no one can be excluded
from carriage by public carrier on ac-
count of color, religious belief, political
relations or prejudices. But the Defend
ants asked the Court to say if the seat
which the plaintiff was directed to take
was in all respects comfortable, safe and
convenient seat, nor inferior in any respect
could not recover. The case therefore in
wolves 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 of
property, sepai ate 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 10 private property as a means of
conveyance and the public interest. The
private means he uses belong wholly to
himself, and imply the right of control for
the protection of his own interest as well
as the performance of his public duty. 1t
is not an unreasonable regulation to seat
passengers so as to preserve order and de.
corCm and prevent contact and collision.
If the grounds of regulation be reasonable,
courts of justice cannot interfere with q
carriers light of private property. The
right of passenger is only that of being
carried safely and with due regard to his
comfort and convenience, which are pro-
NOTED by a sound and well-regulated sepa-
ration of passengers.
Who would maintain that either st an
inn or on vessel it is a reasonable regula-
tion to compel the PASSENGERS, black and
white, to room or bed together? If a right
of private property implies no right of
control, who shall decide contest between
passengers for seats and berths?
Why the Creator made one black and
the other white is known not, but 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 fea-
lures of character intended to imply that
they shall not overstep the natural boun-
dares he has assigned to them. The na.u-
raj law which forbids their intermarriage
ho oil q olfrot xUt inh lood fn
a corruption of races is clearly divine. The
separation of the white and black races on
the surface OF the globe is fact equally
apparent
The right of each to be free from social
contact is as clear as their right to be free
from intermarriage, there
rate relations as far as reasonably practica-
BILE, but in a spirit of kindness and charity,
with due regard to equality and rights.
From an opinion delivered in 1887, by
the late Judge Gibson, it appears that the
status of the negro never fell within the
term ''freemen," and that the emancipation
act of 1888 did not elevate him to citizen
ship in the State. In 1888, the people of
the Commonwealth, by an express amend
ment of the Constitution, drew the line di-
rectly between the white citizen and the
black inhdbitant of the State. Iti S clear,
therefore, that under its Constitution the
white and black man stand in separate re-
lations. Never has there been an inter-
mixture of the two races, socially, politi-
cally, civilly or religiously.
Following these grounds we are compell-
ed to declare that at the time of the alleged
injury there was that natural, legal and
customary difference between the black and
white passengers in public conveyance,
the subject of sound regulation, to secure
order, promote comfort and preserve the
peace. The defendants were, therefore, en-
titled to an affirmative answer to the points
recited in the opinion.
Irdn