New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-05-24
NEW ORLEANS REPUBLloAN, SUNDAY, NAY "a 1874

PENDANT states that a committee OF colorea
people waited a him to get him TO paru-
zion of place for their use, that they So
lecfed the family circle, and he liked IL on
nicely, carpeted it, etc. They stated 10
him that they wanted to be by themselves.
It does not appear that Peter Joseph was
one of that committee, or that ne nae any
desire to go into the family circle; II tno
committee of colored persons mad had az
cess to the parduette and dress c,rcie' l
can not think they would ever have asked
defendant to partition off place tor their
use in the family circle. But that commlt
tee only spoke for themselves. Ii tney
were satisfied with the family circle, that
was no reason why cOlored man VINO was
not satisfied with it should be prevented
from going to the parquette. 1t was trutu'
fully said by the defendant, therefore, tnat
Owens ''does not eject any class, unless ne
has got some good reason" The reason OF
Owens was simply to keep colore1 man
from the parquette, as the rules ailoweu
none of that class to enter that part OF tae
Academy of Music.
Here it becomes necessary to inquire
whether the defendant complies with the
requirements Of the law by merely allowing
colored people access to the family circle
and the private boxes therein, and there
isolate them from white people, and whether
such isolation is not discrimination on ac-
count of race and color, which is prohibited
by the thirteenth article Of the constitution
and the act passed tor the enforcement OF
the same.
One Catharine Brown a colored woman,
on the eighth of February, 1868. anterior to
the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to
the constitution Of the United States,
bought ticket to come from Alexandria to
Washington. The ticket was issued in the
name OF the Washington, Georgetown and
Alexandria Railroad Company. as were
route. No tickets were distinguished
as for white persons or colored per-
sons. nor for any particular sort or
class OF cars. Ali were exactly alike.
When the woman went to take he- place IN
the cars there were standing there two cars
alike comfortable; the one, however, set
apart for colored persons, and the other
'ior white ladies and gentleman accom-
panying theln,' the regulation having been
that in going down from Washington to
Alexandria the first ear should be occupied
by the former and the other car by the
latter, and that in coming back the use
should be simply reversed. When the wO-
man was about to get into one OF the cars
servant of the persons managing the road,
stationed near the cars to direct passen-
gers, told the woman not to get into the
car which she was about to. enter, but to
get into the one before 1t; that he had been
instructed by persons in charge of the road
not to permit cOlOred persons to ride in the
car into which she was getting but to have
them go in the other car. The woman,
however, persisted in going into the car
appropriated for white ladies, and the. man
put her out with force and, as she alleged,
some insult. She then got into the car into
which she had been directed to get-the
one assigned to cOlored people, was carried
safely into Washing tOn and got out there.
Hereupon she sued the Washington, Alex.
andrla and Georgetown Railroad Company
in the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia. On the trial evidence was in
troduced by the defendant to show that the
election had not been with insult OF unne-
cessary force; that the regulation of separa-
ting white from colored persons was one
which was in force on the principal railroads
in the country; that unless the said regula-
ton had been adopted on this road, travel
upon it would have been seriously injured
and that without such regulation the re.
ceipts of the road would have decreased.
The counsel for the company requested
the court to instruct tho jury that if by a
standing regulation certain cars were ap-
propriated and designated for the use of
white persons, and certain others for the
use of colored, and all the cars were equally
safe, clean and comfortable, and if this sort
cipal railroads of the country, and one
which, unless it had been adopted on this
road the travel on it would have been Sc.
riously injured and the receipts of the road
decreased, and if the regulation itself in
reased the expenses of the road consider
in case no insult OF. greater force
than was necessary had been used, and the
plaintiff, after taking seat in car apprO-
priated for colored persons, was carried
safe into Washington, and got out there.
the plaintiff could not recover. The court
to give the instruction. and a YER
diet having been given in $500 for the
plaintiff and judgment entered on it, the
brought the case to the Supreme
Court of the United States, assigning among
other causes of error the refusal to give the
said charge requested.
Mr. Justice Davis in delivering the opin-
ion of the court says:
"The third and last assignment of error
asserts the right Of the company to make
the regulation separating the cOlOred from
the white passengers.
''If the defendant in error had right to
retain the seat she had first taken, it is con-
ceded the verdict of the Jury should not
have been disturbed.
1T appears that the Washington and
Alexandria Railroad Company in 1863 was
DESTROYS of extending its road from the
south side of the Potomac near to the
Baltimore AMI Ohio depot in Washington,
and Congressional aid was asked to enable
t to do SO. The authority to make the
was granted, and the streets
across which the roads should
pass. This grant was accompanied with
several provisions. Among the number
was one that no person shall be excluded
rom the cars on account of color.
''The plaintiff in error contends that it
has literally Obeyed the direction, because
t has never excluded this class of persons
rom the cars, but on the contrary has al |
ways provided accommodation tor them
"This is an ingenious attempt to evade a
compliance with the obvious meaning of
he requirement. 1t is true the words taken
literally might bear the Interpretation put
lpon them by the plaintiff in error, but !
Congress did not use them in
my such limited sense. There was no &C.
,asion, in legislating for a railroad corpora
ION, to annex condition to grant of |
'ower that the company should allow
'oiored persons to ride in its cars. This
light had never been refused. nor
'ould there have been in the mind |
If any one an apprehension that such a
tate of things would ever occur, for self |
interest would clearly induce the carrier,
south as we'll as North, to transport, if paid |
or it, all persons, whether white or black, |
vino should desire transportation. 1t was |
he discrimination in the use OF the cars on |
lccount of color where slavery obtained, !
which was the subject of discussion at the |
ime, and not the fact that the colored race |
ouid not ride in the cars at ali. Congress,
ha hnII nf fhot u
Unjust, acted. 1t told the company in sub.
tance that it could extend its road within |
he District, as desired, but that this dis
animation must cease, and the colored and !
White race, in the use of the cars, be placed |
n an equality. This condition it had the