Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1872-11-02
c0LoRED MEMS RIGHTS IN RESTAURANTS
Important Tecision in the Police Court

Important 4oSAs&Vn An Aoo 4oA&So WV"
ALL MEN EQUAL BEYoRI THE LAw-rxoRBI-
TANT PRICES A PRKrExr TO EvADE THE
LAw-NR. FRRUND FINRD Slo0-HK ArPEALs
FROM THE DECISION.
Judge Smell, in the Police Court, this morn
ing announced his decision in the case of Mr.
Freund, charged with refusing to entertain col
ored people in his restaurant, imposing fine of
800. The opinion is ss follows:
District Of Columbia rs. Frederick Freund: vio-
lstion of chapter 81, section 8, OF the act
passed the second session OF the Legislative
Assembly of this District, regulating restsu-
rants, &c.
proprietor, Keepers of ice cream
saloons refusing to sell or wait upon
any respectable well behaved person, without
regard to race, color, or previous condition of
servitude, any restaurant keeper, hotel, or
ice cream saloon = keepers lcho refuse,
under any preteIt, to serve any we'll behaved and
respectable person, n the same room and at TIE
sdaae prices as other well-behsved and respect
able persons are served, shall be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction in
court having jurisdiction, shall be fined one hun
bred dollars, and shall forfeit his or her license.
= The allegations in this inform alton.
are, that the defendant on the 10Th day October,
last past, in the District of Columbia, violated
the provisions of this act by refusing to sell ice
creams to X. W. Thompson, and others men
toned in the Information, being well behaved
and respectable persons, at the same prices as
were charged to other respectable aud we'll be-
haved persons. The conplainants are clerks in
the Freedmens Bank, Washington, ID. G. 1t
was not seriously commended that the refusal to
serve was because the parties were not respsc-
table well behaved, but because they were
cOlored. 1t appeared that some or all the same
pal ty, had been previously served At defendants
restaurant at reasonable prices. On this occa-
sion 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 discus.
SION between the attendant and proprietors, and
some delay, the compliments were informed
they corid not be served unless they paid in adj
vance the sum Of ~ a cream, as marked upon
the bill. This they declined 20 do, and with
drew from the saloon, after some discussion in
reference to the transactfon and the legal rights
of the parties. The defence made is-that the
defendant had right TO claim pay In advance.
and when this was not complied with, he was
under no obligation to serve the parties calling
for creams. This would undoubtedly have been
price of creams at his restaurant, or at least a
reasonable price, and had been ready to serve
the compliments upon the same terms at which
he served other respectable and we'll behaved
persons; but by attaching to his demand the
unjust and unreasonable condition that they
should pay the sum of 81 for the same cream
usually tn rntshed dor q few cents, it is clearly
manifest that the defendant was attem pting to
evade the law by insisting upon something so
absurd and oppressive as to compel these parties
to withdraw from his restaurant unserved. 1t
Is III pIOn tnAt the price OF creams at TINS sa-
loon was usually from IS to 30 cents. Here the
proprietor demands 81 for the same cream. b.
the card of bill of fare, containing his list of
prices, the defendant unfortunately puts him.
self in the attitude Of being ready to
wait uron and serve colcred customers,
provided they will be centent to sub
init to his unjust and eXtoraonate dem lands.
The court is satisfied that the demand OF 50 or
for single ice cream was a rretext, within the
meaning of the Sd section OF this act, for a re-
fusal TO serve the cOnplainants. Webster de
fines pFetext TO be the "estensible reason OF
for the real reason or motive" No illustration
the legal meaning of the word pretext could be
more opposite than tast furnished by the conduc,
OF the defendant. He was unwilling to make a
IN terms, and as ceOr cc-er for the real reason
he sought an ostersib'e reason which he hoped
would shield him from the legal consequences
OF direct and positive action. IL was pre-
cfely this the law was intended to prevent
Several cases,,i in different forms, bet involving
the same principle, the absolute &c uslity of all
men before the law, have been before this court;
and it is to be hoped that speedy adjudication
OF the questions raised 10y them n,ly be reached
in the supreme court OF this District. 1t is the
duty of courts to take judicial notice of the con-
shtution of the country and the law OF the land
This act is in apparent harmony with both. II
would seem to be the part Of sound philosophy
and good sense to accept with liberality aud
good faith that which has become both history
and established law; but IL communities or indi-
atoms, however tempting, fail to recognize the
legic OF events, it h quite certain the logic OF
events will not fail to recognize them. Rights
which have cost aTevolution will not st and aside
for pretexts. The defendant is adjudged guilty,
and the fine and penalty are imposed.
notice Of an appeal, aud the court fixed the bond
at 500.