The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-01-13
SOCIAL E0UALITY.
The Question Assuming a Serious As.
pcct In the National Capital.

A Washington letter of the 9th instant to the
Philadelphia Day says:
The Board of Aldermen of this city, at its
regular meeting tomorrow, Is to dispose OF an
ordinance, already passed BY the Common
Council, providing that 1t shall not be lawful
for hotel-kccpcr, keeper OF restaurant, and
kreners of saloons, TO make distinction amongst
their guests and patrons on account of race or
color, and providing Is penalty by line for any
violation O. lie ordinance.
Upon this proposition there is n division OF
opinion amongst the intelligent classes Of col
Orcl citizens, Il portion arguing that to urge
this mixing up OF races, at this time. and at
tcmnting to force this sort of social comming-
ling OF the white and black races is impolltlc,
to say the least of ii, and that when the negro
has equal rights with the white man in all
things OF strict public or official character, as
they have in Washington, the attempt to
go further at this time will only work
injury to the colored man. The other
portion of the colored people (who demand
the passage OF the ordinapce,) claim that
the negro should be admitted upon an
equal footing with the whiHman in all places,
save in private dwelllngsshd that this inter-
minglng shall bc enforced oy law. inns party
mon school and funds for Its support under
one board of commissioners, instead OF two
boards, rs is now provided by act OF Congress.
This last-named party has large majority
and will certainly pass the ordinance.
The hotel prOprietors have come TO an un-
dcrstanding that they will not permit a colored
ncrson to put up at their establishments and
when demand shall be made 10 receive a
negro guest, the question will go to the courts
for judicial determination. Restaurant keep
crs propose to take the same course.
The argument of the hotel and restaurant
keepers Is, that their business occupation Is
not ofa public Dnt private character, anu
that they have The right to refuse to do bnsl-
ness with whomsoevcr they please, be they
this point the restaurant keeper may be sus-
talnel by The conrts, but the hotel keeper
presents more difficult question. Although
his hotel is private property, yet il Is not SO
certain that in law he has the right absolutely
to refuse to receive guest or traveller, upon
the ground that he is of particular race. Inc
common law, as TO the hotel or inn keeper
(Which is substantially iEc same) has been
construed to be that he is bound TO receive all
''prOpcr persons WHO resort to his house as
travellers, at suitable times and in proper
manner, and are able to pay their fare, so long
as he has the means of accommodation for
them. Whether they can be sustained in re-
tllsing to accept negroes as "proper persons,
is yet 10 be determined.
These circumstances bring us now to the
settlement OF the delicate branch oil the qllcs-
tion, as to the standing of the colorcd citizen.
All rights are conceded and secured to him as
n citizen before the law in this district. He
can vote, testify in court, serve as juror, hold
office and ride in the railroad cars, &c. But
shall he be received OIL an equality with the
white man socially? Shall the law be invoked
to force social intercourse between any
persons, whether black or white? Such, it is
argued by some is TO be the result OF holding
that the restaurant keeper (whosc business Is
priyatc-in no sense public) shall receive the
colorcd man in his establishment on footing
with the white citizen.