The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-11-30
The Rights of the COIOred Mnn-Judgs
AgneW,a Opinion,


The Rights OF the COIOred Man-Judge
Agnew's Opinion,
TO 1te Editor Of The Evening Telegrdph:-
The recent decision Of the Supreme Court or
this State in the case of the Philadelphia and
West Chester Railroad Company VS.. Mary e.
Miles, is an event to be deplored by all good
citizens, not only as an act of injustice to one
person, but as an indication of lower moral
tone in that Court than might have been ex-
pected at this day, and also for the sake OF its
evil influence on that public sentiment which
has so long been arrayed against the colored
man. Comparatively few readers will carefully
examine the sophistry of Judge Agnew's argu-
ment, or perceive the inconsistency between
some of his assertions. Many will be satisfied
that he has thrown the dignity of his judicial
robe over the low and unchristian prejudice
against the negro which they indulge in them
selves; and in his official words find thei
fancied justification for acts of oppression to
wards their fellow citizens.
z The Judge admits that no one can be ex.
cluded from public carriage on account
color: and comedies, in this case, the negro's
right to be carr led precisely on the same foot
ing with a white man." and then argues in
defense of the action of the Railroad Company
IN requiring colored persons TO occupy seats
which shall separate them from white persons
Yet II is well-known fact that white man,
on eDtertDg railroad car takes any unoccu.
pied seat whlch he chooses. and may hold it as
MS Dy rlght, and that any attempt on the part
OF conductor to remove him from It by force
excepting in the case OF disorderly conduct
would subject such conductor TO a conviction
for assault and battery Even If a white man
should choose seat by the side OF a colored
man, no conductor would dare to lay his hand
upon him TO remove him, and no court would
justify such attempted removal. 1t is evident
therefore, that In the case before Judge AgneW
the colored passenger was not allowed her
right TO be carried precisely on the same foot
ing as white man."
The arguments or illustrations drawn from
the existence OF ladies' car on many railroad
trains, and the practice common during Ihe
war OF assigning separate cars for the use of
soldiers, are not applicable to this case because
the one is an expression of courtesy from men
towards women, which the latter cannot claim
as legal right, and the other was an arrange.
ment Tor mutual convenience and satisfaction
any soldier who, having bought a first class
ticket, chose to take any unoccupied seat in
the train. The analogy in the case of an inn
keeper falls, because no one claims or desires
that hotels shall be thrown open, like railroad
cars, ior the selection of places by those who
enter them; and the inquiry If it would be a
reasonable regulation to compel passengers
black and white. TO room together, has no
attempted or proposed TO compel any white
person to sit by The side of a colored one in
The Judge says:-"To assert separateness is
not to declare inferiority in either" This de-
pends on the way in which it is asserted. II,
while the white mans right to choose his seat
is acknowledged and respected, the colored
man has his assigned to him because his pre-
sence is offensive TO his white fellow citizens
the act does assert the ineriority of the colored
man, and declares that he shall be subject, to
this extent at least, to all who wear a white
skin. This judicial argument, like most argu-
me nts in behalf of despotism, seeks substaN-
of the State are appealed to- and judicial deci-
sions quoted, to prove that the status of the
negro never fell within the term freeman" in
the several Constitutions, and that the emanci-
patton act of 1880 did not elevate him to the cti.
the action of the people of Pennsylvania in 1885,
which deprived the black man of his right to
vote in the Commonwealth. The Judge seems
to forget that he began his statement OF the case
before him with concession that black and
white passengers had the same rights. II that
is his Interpretation of the law, of what use are
his pTecedents? And what can such precedents
prove? That the black man has been deprived
Of citizenship, of freedom, on account of his
color; that, being weak, he has been the victim
OF oppression; that the white man, in his
greater strength, has meanly robbed him. What
then? Does Judge ofour Supreme Court really
mean to say that acts of injustice in the past
sanction and sanctify violations of mems
can change the eternal laws OF right and
wrong, That would be to deny that the essence
This decision and the arguments on which 1t
is based are sufficiently unjust and injurious
his fellow citizens; but to all tins the Judge has
added insult. ID. es he mean to taunt them, from
his high seat, with the fact that they are com
PEELED by the prejudices OF their white brethren
TO occupy separate places of public worship
and amusement?" that they are allowed TO "hll
no civil or political stations not even sitting TO
decide their own causes?" He is not ashamed
to proclaim, with evident approval, the dis
graceful fact that even in the solemn hour
when black men nobly gave their lives to save
the nation which had oppressed them, they
were carefully separated from white soldiers,
until, dying for a common cause, the blood OF
white ana black moistened one field, and their
spirits assembled to one Father.
1he friends of justice may well rejoice that
the passage of the act of our Legislature pro.
hlbiting distinction between railroad passen-
gers on account of race or color, will save the
Commonwealth from any more such judicial
decisions in the future; though they may not
agree with Judge AgneW's assertion, that the
act is itself an indication of the legislative un-
derstanotng that the law was different pre-
viouslY. Special statutes, with heavy penalties
are sometimes necessary 10 enforce simple
justice. NJ. G.