Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1872-11-04
F R E U N D :.
JUDGE SMELLS DECISION,


-A MI
Court.
In thu ease of y Freund thu ratercr hrouybt
~ O'VSS Us
before the romeo COuft on the charge Of re-
fuslng to serve X. W. Thompson, on account OF
race color or preyIous condItIon Of seryItnde
49, -, - s.,,,-,., a.. S',,'s1'-'
'uuBo euo' Oh Sa'uT"y gave lho lOho"lhB
written decision;
District OF Columbia vs. Frederick Freund.
violation OF chapter 81, section s, Of the act
passed the second session Of the LeRislatiye
Assembly Of this District, regulating Testau.
rants, &c.
Section 3 enActs that any restaurant keeper or
proprietor, Keepers Of ioe-oream
saloons . refusing to sell or wait unon
any respectable, we'll behaved person, without
seryitudo; or any restaurant kespsr, hotel or
ice.cream saloon - keepers who refuse,
under any preteXt, to serve any Wellbshayed md
respectable peFsOn, In the same room and al the
same prices as other wei. behaved and regpsetn.
BILE persons are served, shall be deemed guilty
Of \ misdemean nor, and upon eOnVictlOn In q
court having Jurisdiction, shall be lined one hun.
drod dollars, and shall forfeit his or her license
The allegations in this Information
are, that the sndan /, on the 18th day OF OctO
Der, last passed, In tho District OF Columbia,
violated the provisions OF this act, BY 70.
fuslng TO sell toe-eream 70 II, W. ThomRson
and others mentioned in the InIorma
tlOn, being we'll behaved and respectable
persons at the same prices Al were
charged 10 other respectable and ell.behNyed
persons. The cSnplalnants are clerks Ia
The Freedman's bank, Washington. ii d. IL
was not seriously contended that The refusal IN
serve was because the paroles were no, TesDee,.
able or we'll behaved but because thew ware
oOlOred Il appeared that some or All Of the
same party had boen previously served Al de-
IendAntH TestauFRnt Al reaAOnabie nrIoeS On
this occasion they were prosented with the bIii
Of fare and then attention was called 10 ths
prices Of the creams upOn IL which were a Ned Al
~ The Attendant was directed 10 SsrVs Inc
creams without reference 10 DTIes Ana Soma
discussion between the Attendant and nrnnria.
tors, ana some DELAY tie oOmpIhInhnLS weIa in.
formed thew eould moi he seTgeJ NJ I."S ths,,
maid in advance tho sum of ~ a cSeam a
marked up0n the Mil. This thev dscIInad 10
DO and Withdrew from the saioon nfIar Soms
discussion in Teferenca h the transas,IoIN "a
the legal FIRhts Of the DaTtIes Ths LstansS
made is-that the defendant had a TIRbt 10
claim nav in advance. and When this va moi
complied with he was under M ohIigHtlon n
serve the PARTIES calling for oreama This InniJ
upd0ubteiIy have besn true N the dsGendSnt
had demanded the usual pTIce Of dreams A. his
restAurant, or a. least a rsasonable mica and
had been ready 10 serve the cOmDiainantS up0n
the same terms Al which he Served 0theT Tesnset-
able and well. behaved persons; but by attash.
ing 10 his demand the uniust and unrea am hle
condition that they Should nav the ann
Of two dollars for the same cream usu.
ally ufnIshed for A Jew cents. II h eIesTIv
eVade the law by insisting upon sOmSthinR 40
absurd and oppressive a. 10 romDeI thsGe mar,
ties to withdraw from his restaurant unseFVod
II Is in proof that tho price OF creams AT this sa
loon was usually from 10 to 30 cents. Here the
proprietor demands a. for tho same cream Uy
the card OF bill of fare, containing his list Of
prices, the defendant unfortunately nuts him.
self in the attitude Of being ready 70 wait upon
and serve cOlOred customers, provided they will
30 content 70 submit to his unjust and SxtoT.