The daily gazette. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1874-1883, 1875-03-27
From the Philadelphia Telegraph, (Rep)
NOU YOM See 1T, and NOU YOM
Don't See 1T.

II would be interesting to know ex-
actly what the members of Congress
who voted for the Civil Rights bill
meant by tiff they really meant any
thing but the making of some political
capital for themselves among the col
ored people. The whole theory of the
bill is based upon a rather wire-drawn
distinction between II license fee and
an ordinary tax, Congress assuming
the right TO dictate to hotel proprictors
and the managers of places of amuse-
ment ON the ground of their holding
licenses which gave them a public
character. Now, since Congress has
adjourned and the question of inter
preting the law for its enforcement
comes up, we find that in the minds
of the legislators and legal doctors Ii
cense does not necessarily make an es-
tablishment public resort within the
terms of the bill. Mr.. 3. F. Butler,
who was the most active champion of
the bill in the House of Representa-
tives, who sat up number of weary
nights, who talked himself hoarse and
who otherwise put himself to a great
deal of trouble and personal discomfort
over it, has taken pains to write
letter to bibulous colored friend, in
which he states very explicitly that the
terms of the bill do not apply 10 drink
ing saloons. According to Mr.. Butler
colored man has a right to go into q
hotel and get what he wants to eat
by paying for it, we presume; although
the real meaning of the bill is getting
so obscured that we are not sure upon
this point, and we know that good
many citizen of African address fancy
that it gives them the right TO enjoy
the delights of hotel living and of thea
trical entertainments gratis--but he
has no right to drink anything stronger
| than water, unless the dispenser of
| fluids thinks proper to give it to him.
Mr.. Butler bases this definition of the
limitations of the law upon his own
opinion that liquor drinking is not
good for colored men, and that, as
| "Trip Van Wrinkle" says, they are
"better mitout it." The law, however,
certainly makes no distinction between
eating and drinking and as good
many people, African as well as Cau-
casian, think that their drinking is of
as much, or even more, importance as
their eating, it is difficult to understand
the logic of Mr.. Buffers present posi-
tion. Again, in the matter of amuse.
ments, here is a United States Com
missioner in New Jersey decided that
a billiard saloon, although run under
license, is not place of public re-
sort within the meaning of the act :
Now it would be highly interesting
for some of us who think that law
making is a somewhat serious matter,
and who don't like to see the statute
books made ridiculous by mere bids
for personal or partisan popularity on
the part of blathcrskite politicians, il
we could be shown the exact difference
from the point of view of the men
who voted for this bill, between a Ii.
censed theatre and licensed billiard
saloon, or between licensed eating
and licensed drinking house. Con-
gress struck out the only feature of the
bill that had any real value-the rela-
ting to the schools-and if it meant
anything but buncombe by what
remained it does no: appear very clear
| ly.