New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-06-25
The Civil Rights Bill.

The Civil Rights Bill.
The first verdict of jury in all the cases
brought in our courts under the civil rights
bill was rendered last night at about ten
o'clock, in the case of William Smith vs.. j.
Peligrini, tried before Judge Lynch. The
plaintiff was not directly refused the glass
of soda water he asked for but was told he
could have it provided be was willing to
pay dollar for it, As this CONDITION was
imposed before the beverage was served to
him it was plain to him that it was
made prerequisite because of his Atri-
can color. He called the attention of the
proprietor to the fact that soda water was
being served to white people for the sum Of
five cents, and one Of them, Mr.. E. L.
Jewell, who testified in the case, was so
offended by this reference to him that he
caused Mr.. Smilh's expulsion from the es-
tablishment by the police.
Mr.. JEWELS testimony did not ipjure the
plaintiffs case in the least. That colored
man should be expelled from q saloon by
person having no interest in it, merely be-
cause he suggested he had the same rights
under the law as that person in place of
public resort vss not circumstance to
suggest q verdict against him by tair-
minded jury.
Mr.. Chester's argument presented the
case to the jury, fairly shov ing the intimate
relations of all the people Of Louisiana of
both colors, and the interest each had in
preserving the rights of both.
The verdict was for $50. We do not
propose to express an opinion as to
whether this amount gives adequate dam
ages for the injury suffered, or is exces-
sive. On the one hand, the eu ufeling of
mind man may endr-e tor the mol tifca-
tion inflicted may suggest exemplary dam
ages to be given even against the sug
gestion that such suit may be instituted
even for the purpose of lev ying black mail
On the other hand, the reasoning of Jus.
tice Wyly in Sauvinet vs. Walker is per-
haps sound-that colored man suffers no
more damage than white one in being
refused drink, and such damage is
trivial.
AASeC "AU UCllCfC ~ lAlS lnttSI OositlOu
may consider it proper to apply the maxim,
de nsininis non curat len. We do not.
While the question Of right to even the
most trivial damage is in allegiance, 'the
theft of a pin," to use the words Of Black
stone, is not "a slight thing
Under the Civil Code any wrong or in
Jury suffered by party IN interest gives
such standing in court that an exception
to cause of action would not be sustained
| by Judge with brains. Even without the
civil rights bill 10 unbiased mind but would
admit negro would suffer damage by an
unexpected refusal Of soda water precisely
| as a white man would under the same Cir
cumstances. No matter how slight the
damage, it would, even though trivial
enough to come uuder the maxim in the
estimate of ordinary minds, be enough to
compel acknowledgement
| 1t is strange suppression on the minds Of
many who have lived under the civil law
that there is discretion within the power
of exercise Of an innkeeper, or other pro
prietor of public place, to refuse to serve
| d pdtIOu VA OtucI thou CoAultAono VI Sou
duct, character and pecuniary ability. The
provision of the Civil Code, above referred
to, is strong enough 10 carry the whole cur
rent Of the common law decisions on com
mon carriers and jnDkeepers with it. A
respectable white man who is refused soda
| water when he tenders tie money to pay
| for it in place Of public resort, is entitled
to bis action.
The damage would no doubt be small,
but so they are in all trivial actions of tres
pass, where the plaintiff only seeks to es-
tablish right. I'VE find for the plaintiff,
| my lord, damages one penny" is the ordi.
nary English verdict, and perhaps in a
short time a similar verdict will be the
result of trial before New Orleans jury
in civil rights case.
No more is necessary. It is enough that
the trespass is established. The civil rights
bill simply placed upon the statute book a
legislative assertion Of the rights the col
ored man, which he possessed in common
with his white fellow citizen before its en-
| actment.
We are glad to see that jury of intel
ligent men, enpaneled rnder the new law.
which has already worked such wonders
has acknowleG ged these facts, which already J
were affirmed by the Supreme Court.