New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1872-11-07

Wen Equal Before the Lav-EXorbitant
Prices a Prefext 10 Evade the Lay-Mr.
Freund Fined SIOO-He Appeals from the
Decision.
Judge Smell, in the Police Court, this morn
inS announced his decision in the case of Mr..
Freund, charged with refusing to entertain
colored people in his restaurant, imposing a
fine of Sl00. The opinion is as follows:
District Of Columbia rs. Frederick Freund:
violation of chapter 81, section 3, of the
| act passed the second session of the Icgis-
| lative Assembly of this District, regulating
restaurants, SC.
Section enacts that any restaurant keeper
or proprietor, keepers of
| ice cream saloons reftIs-
ing to sell or wait upon any respectable we'll
| behaved person, without regard to race.
color, or previous condition Of scryitude, or
any restaurant keeper, hotel, or ice cream
saloon keepers who re-
fuse, under any prcteXt, to serve any well
behaved and respectable person, in the same
room and at the same prices rs other we'll
behaved and respectable persons are served,
shall be deemed guilty ola misdcmcanor, and
upon conviction in a court having iurisdic-
ton, shall be fined one hundred dollars, and
shall forfeit his or her license.
The allegations in this information, arc, that
the defendant on the 10Th day of October,
ltiSI PAST, III Ol tOlllnlDll, NlO-
| lated the provisions Of this act, by refusing
to sell ice creams to Il. W. Thompson, and
others mentioned in the information, being
well behaved and respectable persons, at the
same prices as were charged to other respect
able and well behaved persons. The COM
plainants are clerks in the Freedmen's Bank,
Washington, ID. {. 1t was not seriously
contended that the refusal to serve was be-
cause the parties were not respectable or
I,rtL I
1t appeared, that some Orall the same party,
had been previously served at defendants
restaurant at reasonable prices. On this
occasion they were presented with the bill
of fare, and then attention was called to the
prices of ice creams upon it, which was fixed
at So. The attendant was directed to serve
the creams, without reference to price. After
some discussion between the attendant and
propretors, and some delay, the complain
ants were informed they could not be served
unless they paid in advance the sum of 80 a
cream, as marked upon the bill. This they
declined to do, and withdrew from the saloon,
after some discussion in reference to the
transaction and the legal rights Of the par
ties. The defense made is--that the defend
ant had right to claim pay in advance, and
i. when this was not complied with, he was
under no obligation to serve the parties calling
for creams. This would undoubtedly have
been true if the defendant had demanded the
q. usual price Of creams at his restaurant, or at
> least a reasonable price, and had been ready
tOserve the cOmplainantS upon the same terms
at which he served other respectable and
well-behaved persons {; but by attaching to
; his demand the uni just and unreasonable
: condition that they should pay the sum of 81
: for the same cream usually furnished for a
few cents, it is clearly manifest that the de-
II PENDANT was attempting to evadc the law by
insisting upon something so absurd and OPP
d pressive as to compel these parties to with
: draw from his restaurant unScrVcd. IL is III
proof that the price of creams at this saloon
was usually from Is to 80 cents. Here the
= proprietor demands 81 for the same cream.
BY the card OF bill of fare, containing his list
OF prices, the defendant unfortunately puts
IS himself in the attitude OF being ready to wait
?, upon and serve colored customers. provided
]. they will be content to submit to his unjust
It and extortiona.e demands. The court is
II satisfied that the demand of $500 for single
IS ice cream was pretcXt, within the meaning
&c of the Sd section of this act, for Il refusal t.
&c serve the compliments. Webster defines
ID preteXt to be the ostcnsible reason or mo-
IS tive assigned, or assumed, as n color or cover
lie for the real reason or motive No illustra
re ton of the legal meaning of the word pre-
ii text could be more opposite than that fur
er nished by the conduct Of the defendant. III,
~ was unwilling to make direct and positive
~ refusal to serve the complainantS i'll terms
e, and as color or cover for the real reason h.
of sought an ostensible reason, which he hope,
rs would shield him from the legal consequence
of direct and positive action. 1t was pre-
t. cisely this the law was intended to prevent
rs Several cases, in different forms, but involv
of ing the same principle, the absolute equalit
ed of all men before the law, have been befor
as this cour, and it is to be hoped that speed
in adjudication of the questions raised by ther
as may be reached in the supreme court of thi
" District. 1t is the duty Of the courts to tax
.ly judicial notice of the Constitution of tn
in country and the law of the land. This az
re is in apparent harmony with both. 1t woul
RS seem to be the part of sound philosophy an
~ good sense to accept with liberality and goo
he faith that which has become both history an
IN established law; but if communities or ind
we viduals, mislead by prejudice or other col
bic siderations, however tempting, fail to reco,
lst nize the logic of events, it is quite certa
ore the logic of events will not fail to recogni
of them. Rights which have cost revoluti,
ON will not stand aside for pretexts. The d
Tho PENDANT is adjudged guilty, and the fine al
old penalty are imposed.
as Mr.. Miles Dean, counsel for defense, ca
vas notice of an appeal, and the court fixed t
EN- bond at 5000.