National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-09-30
RIGHTS OF COLORED MEN.
PENALTY FOR REFUSING TO SERVE
COIORED MEN.

COLORED MEN.
,,vesps rAEGsToN AND PURVIs VS.. HAIR
vEy 3 HoLDEN-'I HOPE THIS IS PLAIN
ENoTGH,, - ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS
FTNF-AK APPEAL NOTED.
Yesterday, in the Police Court, before JEdge
Smell, a hearing was had in the case Of George
W. Harvey and Thomas Holden, partners under
the firm name Of Harvey s Holden, Who were
charged with refusing, on the sd day of Septem-
Der, ito accommodate in their restaurant certain
elLbeRaved AID respectable persons, namely,
Charles B. PurTis and John NJ. Langston, al
though requested then and there By said persons
TO accommodate them with luncA-"
Messrs. Langston and PUrvis are Weh-knoWn
colored eitisens and the action brought against
Harvey & Holden under the Legislative act ap-
proved June 20, 1872; section three Eof which
reads:
THAT any restaurant keeper or proprietor, any
hotel keeper or proprietor, proprietors keepers
kept for.sale or keepers of barber-shops and bath
ing houses, refusing to sell or walt upon any
spectacle, well-behaTed person, without regard
to race color, previous condition of servitude
or anyTestaurant, hotel, ice-cream saloon or soda
fountain, barber-shOp or bathing house keepers,
or proprietor, who refuses on any pretext to serve
any we'll behaved respectable person in the same
room, and at the same prices as other we'll
behaved and respectable persons are served, shall
be deemed guilty OF u mlSQ6mea0Or, and upon
conviction in court having Jurisdiction, shall be
fined one hundred dollars, and shall forfeit his or
her license as keeper or owner of such place of
business, and it shall not be lawful for the regis
ter to issue license to any person or their agents
who shall have forfeited their license under the
provisions Of this act until period Of one year
shall have elapsed after said forfeiture"
Mr.. Holden, who was present, was represented
by Mr.. Merrick-
TESTIMONY OF DR.. PURvIs.
DR.. Purvis testified that he visited the restau-
rant of Harvey s. Holden, in company with Mr..
Langston, on Wednesday last, and took his seat
and ordered lunch. Presently q man called by
and said those seats were taken. Mr. Langston
asked, what do you mean by thisP" The man
said, simply that you cannot be served here,
and hope this is plain enough" Witness was
very indignant, and went and saw Nr. Harvey
seemed surprised at frst, thinking the converse
tion had been with one of his servants. When he
found out that it was with his partner, Mr. Harvey
said, THAT is our custom; If we one we must
serve Others"
Cross-examinsd: MI Holden said, when asked
by Mr.. Langston what he meant, II will not serve
YOU; now hope this is plain enough" When Mr..
Harvey found out who had told them this, he said
it was the rules of his house; that he (witness)
was a gentleman, no doubt. but If he served him
he must serve others, and it would inJure his
business. Witness considered that he had right
TO be served anywhere he sat down. He had been
served there many times betore-the last time
while Congress was sitting here-and since last
January he had been served there both by him
self and with others; one man aforementioned was
AAA' SNOAACJs
Mr.. LANGsToN's TESTIMONY.
Mr.. LAngston testified that he went there with
DR.. Puryis went into the back part of the saloon;
found Mr.. Murtagh there; took seats at the table
by them'elves; when the doctor gave his order q
gentleman stepped up and said, "these seats are
engaged;' witness said, "sir, don't know what
you mean" he said, docking at u.s. 81 mean that
/ won't serve yOu;' witness said, doctor, what
shall we do about this?" the Doctor said, Il Will
20 and see Mr.. Harvey He went to Mr.. Har-
Yey's private office, and this same gentleman fol-
n d.
they left the saloon; everything was very quietly
done; no words were used on either side; witness
had been served formerly at that same table.
CrOss-examined: When the Doctor asked him
to go to HaTyeys, witness remarked to him, is
il all right there?" the Doctor replied that he
thought it vas as he hat often been served there.
Mr.. MYERS, SPECIAL OFFICER
employed at the house, testified that these two
the regular dinner hour. When their regular
customers came in 10 dinner they took seats, and
witness told them that the seats were engaged.
One of them asked him what that meant. He re-
piled that he could not serve them at that table,
as the seats were engaged at that hour. One Of
them remarked that If they could not be served
there they would not be served at all. Witness
frequently had occasion to ask gentlemen to take
different seats from the ones they sometimes take
they appealed to Mr.. Harvey he told them that
the room was under control Of Mr.. Holden and
witness, and whatever they told him was right.
They have many customers who hold commuta-
tiOn tickets, and these seats are generally occu-
pied by them at dinner hours. Witness told
them the seats were engaged for their regular
customers.
GEORGE BLAss TESTIFIED
that he was present and heard the conversation
which took place. DR.. Purvis went to Mr. Harvey
and said he and his friend had come down to get
Mr.. Harvey replied that Nj. Holden and Mt.
Myers had charge Of that room, and what they
did was right Mr.. Myers said they could be
served, but not at that table. DR.. Purvis re-
marked that If they could not be served at that
table they would not be served at all.
Mr.. j. R. soLDIN TESTIFIED
to seeing DR.. PWvis in the saloon; witness was
doing some business with Mr.. Harvey; DIR. Purvis
come for q lunch, and could not be served; Mr..
Harvey said what Mr.. Myers and Mr.. Holden did
was ali right; DR.. Purvis turning to Mr.. Myers)
remarked, "Then am to understand that we
cannot be serVed?" Mr.. Myers replied, "You can
be served; but not at that table;f Or. Purvis re-
piled, Then we won't be served at ALL"
Cross-examined. When DIR. PurVis complained
TO Mr.. Harvey, he remarked that whatever Mr..
Holden and Mr.. Myers told him was all right;
Mr.. Harvey did not say that It would injure his
business by serving them.
Mr.. Goldin recalled. Mr.. Harvey did not say
that his business would be injured by serving
them, but only that the room was under control
OF Mr.. Holden and Mr.. Myers, and whatever they
did was right.
ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENCE.
The testimony closed here, and Mr.. Merrick
said he had never given the law his examination.
he did not propose to raise any point as to the
obligatory nature Of the law, but he submitted
that it had not been shown in the testimony
that these gentlemen had refused to accOmmO-
date cOmplainants All of the witnesses for the de-
fence had agreed that during the conversation
between DR.. Purvis, Mr.. Harvey and Mr.. Myers
no refusal had been made 20 serve them. None
who had given testimony except DIR. Purvis had
testified that there was any refusal to serve them,
and even he had to acknowledge that there was
an offer made by EIr. Myers to serve them in
other seats and in some other part Of the house,
but that they refused to be served unless at that
particular table. Now, had Puryis accepted this
offer the duty would have dvyOlved upon Myers
to have pointed out which table he could be served
at but instead Of this Puryiss said mo, if can't
be served at that table I'll not be served at all"
1t was perfectly apparent that this man Purvis
was not seeking lunch so much as O case Of liti-
CATION and to create luminosity.
ARGUMENT FOR PROSECUTION.
Mr.. Birney, for the prosecution, here read the
act under which the case was brought against
defendants, and commended that the evidence fully
supported the information and warrant. An alb
sOlute refusal had been made, and the pretence
trumped up to meet the case. There was only
one seat Occupied-that occupied by Mr.. Muir
served there Dr.. Purvis had, as he had been
regular customer at this establishment. No
good reason had been offered why they could not
Be served at this table, only the one stated by
DIR. Purvis as that given by Mr.. Harvey, that It
would injure his business. Mr.. Myers seemed to
want a pretext to move these gentlemen from
their seats.
ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS FINE.
The Court said he had been called upon to act
upon this law before. When requested to leave
the seats they were in, 1t should have been made
known to them that there were other seats which
they could occupy. Prof. LangstOn had asked,
''What does this meant" The reply was that
''they did not mean to serve them; that was plain
enough" This refusal appeared to be absolute
and he had only one thing to do, which was to
impose a fine OF 800. Some applause followed,
which was, however, suppressed, and Mr.. Mer-
rick appealed.
THE YACHT RACE