The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-01-11
Social Equality.

The arrest of Manager Ford, of Baltimore
the lessee Of the Charleston Academy OF
Music, for refusing 10 allow colored man
to occupy a seat in the orchestra stalls OF
that building, will most probably lead to a
final settlement OF a question which has vez-
ed for long the business men of the South.
AS soon as the political equality OF the
blacks and whites was an accomplished fact,
the Southern Radicals turned their attention
to securing for their dusky constituents So
cial equality with the whites. Equality be-
fore the law, equality in the jury box, equali-
ty in the legislative halls, and equali tyln the
public streets, did not satisfy Shem. They
demanded for the freedmen absolute social
equality equality in the church, equality in
the theatre, equality in the restaurant and
saloon; that the negro, in fine, should thrust
himself in as an equal wherever a white
man or white woman might go. 1t is the
general belief that most OF this agitation is
due to the Radical whites who desire TO
make political capital by dilating upon the
wrongs of the black man. As rule, the
colored people care but little to push them
selves where they are not wanted; but their
numbers and political power in this State
are so great, that q nod and cunning word
may easily indace them to believe that they
are outraged and abused, because OF their
color, when, in truth, they are the subjects
of a purely business regulation.
Manager Ford did, doubtless, violate
law of this State in refusing, on account OF
his color, to admit colored man to par
ticular part of the Academy OF Music. But
the principle at stake cannot be measured
bv the terms OF statute Unless man
has the right to carry on his own business
in his own way; to determine who shall be
admitted and who shall be refused; to re-
ouire that certain classes shall occupy GER
tain parts of his building, what certainty
has he that he can make his business sue
cessful? His regulations have as their OBJ
iect the pleasing OF the public, not the per-
secution of class; and if he is OF opinion
that the admission of men with black faces,
or women with whito hats, will interfere
with his business profits, he has clearly the
rirlt to refuse to take them in. In the pre-
sent case the colored people have comlorta-
bic seats, equal in every respect to the seats
given at the same price to the whites. Why,
then, do they complain; or why do their
leaders complain so loudly for them? IL
would be hard to show that any OF them sui
fer peculiarly damage by their exclusion
from the dress circle Of the Academy; but IL
is easy to prove that the admission oil col
ored people to the part OF the house reserved
for the whites, would be ruinous to Manager
Ford, and tantamount to closing the build
inc.
And this brings US down to the bottom OF
tho whole matter. All the laws that ever
dis.raccd the statute book cannot compel
the white man TO seat his wife and children 10y
the side OF the negro; nor to frequent the res
taurauts where the colored people goi nor to
be the customer OF the barbcr-shop whose tow
els and brushes are used for white and black
alike. Ii the courts decide that the negroes
can 90 where they please, they will go-but
the white people will stay at home. The
courts may determine that Cufee has legal
right to touch shoulders with the whites in
the theatre, in the church aud the saloon;
but the right will be barren, for the white
people will stay away. The Supreme Court
may kill profitable branches OF trade, and
violate private rights, but it cannot make
the negro the social equal of the white man.
That, at least, is certain!