The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1874-04-17
EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW.
Negroes Entitled to tho Same Accommo-
dations Given to White People.
BY CHIEF JUSTICE LJDELING.

ScSt('frft 4p6tH" u. "tf" W. A''"Sot.
The plaintitf, a colored woman, al
leges that in July 1872, being in the
city of New Orleans, and desiring to
go to her plantation in the parish of
Pointe Coupee, she went on board the
steamboat Gov. Allen, plying between
this point and Nicksbnrg, and that she
was refused Il berth and the right to
take her meals at tue table with the
other passengers. The lower court gave
damages for $1,000.
The evidence, says Chief Justice
Ludeling, sustains plaintiffs case, and
the defendant said he refused her q
berth on account of her color; that it
was "contrary to the rules of the boat"
Act No. IS of 1869 is not in conflict
with the constitution, as it does not
make any regulation OF commerce. The
first section provides that common car
riers may refuse to receive or may eN-
pei passengers when they refuse to pay
guilty of bad conduct, etc, provided
that no discrimination be made on ac-
count of race or color. The fourth
section gives the right of action. The
law was enacted solely to protect the
newly enfranchised citizens of the
United States in Louisiana from the
effects of prejudice against them. 1t
does not violate article fourteen. No
one is deprived by it of life, liberty or
property without due process of law.
The position that because ones propcr-
ty can not be taken without due pro-
cess Of law, therefore Il common carrier
can conduct his business as he chooses,
without reference to the rights of the
public, is so illogical that it is only
necessary to state it to expose its fallacy.
receive all who offer, carry them over
the whole route, demand only the
usual compensation and treat ell axe,
and for failure is responsible to the eX-
tent of the damage. Chamberlain VS..
Chandler, ; Mason, 142; Keene VS..
Lizardi, j La, 43l Black VS. Banner
mann, 10 A., ] Mclean, $50; 3 Nc
Lean, a; Parsons Mercantile Law,
2O7; ) Kent, lG0. Tho right of the
plaintiff to sue would be the same,
whether act thirty-cight existed or
not; but the act is in perfect accord
with the constitution of the United
States. CoIored people have all the
rights which white people enjoy. Sue
cess. OF Caballcro; IIoss & Elder US.
Hart ct al, % a. Mrs. Ducuir was
denied the right to go into the ladies'
cabin and was forced to stay III the
"colored bureau" If she had been
white it will not be denied she would
have had just cause of complaint. In
Cogcr VS.. N. w. Union Packet Co.,
Chief Justice Beck, Of Iowa, uses the
following language, which we adopt:
"These' rights and privileges rest
upon the equality OF all before the law,
the very foundation principle of our
government. If the negro must sub
nit to different trcatment-to accom-
mOtlatiOns inferior to those given to
the white nau-Wlien transported by
public carriers, he is deprived of the
benefits of this very equality. His con-
tract would not secure him the same
privileges and the same rights that Il
like contract made with the same party
by his white fcllow-citizcns would be-
stow upon the latter" Am. Law Reg,
March, 1871. a common carrier may
make reasonable rules, but a regulation
that is founded on prejudice, and which
is contrary to law, is not reasonable.
Fhe appellee has not asked for an in
crease of the Judgment. 1t is, there
fore, ordered the judgment be affirmed.
JUSTICE wYLy DTsSENTs.
Justice Wyly, in dissenting opin-
ion, says that he cannot regard the
constitutional provision and the stat
ute Of this State, as applied by the
majority Of the court in this case, other
wise than rs cnactmcntS of State to
regulate commerce between the States
i'm c0ntravcntion of the constitution of
the United States.
The Gov. Allen was engaged in COM
merce between the States of Louisiana
and Mississippi, and was not bound to
observe the local legislation regulating
the entertainment of passengers. Lou
isiana had no power to pass such an
act. The police power of II State can
not extend beyond its own limits.
The owners Of the boat proved it was
the universal custom to have two tables;
that the regulation was known to the
plaintiff; that she refused to accept the
accommodation offered that she paid
50 fare, the rate for coiorcd people
that for white being 81.
Justice WHY maintains that the con
tract was made in reference to the Gus.
tom of the boat. The plaintiff ac
copied defendants offer to carry her in
the colorcd cabin. There was no breach
of contract.
Laying out of view the cnactmcnts