Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-04-01
IHE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL ON
TRIAL.
Cincinnati Commercial.

cincinnati ODmuaGIClils
If we are not mistaken, the Repubh-
cans have passed a measure the inef-
fciency Of which, as concerns practical
results, will be conspicuous. Already
those Of the colOred race who exhibit
their ignorance by inquiring whether
the Civil Rights bill entities them to
be shaved IN every barber-shop, and TO
drink at the counter Of every saloon,
are told by that prince Of radical Re
publicans, Gen. Butler, that they have
no such rights. They are told further
that the Civil Rights bill, as passed
cOnGeTs not a vestige Of any right upon
the colOred man which he did not
already possess under the ancient COM
mon law Of the United States, and of
all other countries. Buffers letter to
Harlan amounts to a timely snub Of
the sentimental theory that social
privileges and personal elevation, any
more than character or intelligence,
can be secured by an act Of Congress.
And colored BARRIERS IN Washington
and elsewhere, quick 70 discern the in
dicabons Of the times, openly refuse to
shave colored men in their saloons, lest
it should iniUre their business.
On the drinking question, again,
there IS a singular anomaly IN the law
itself. While cOlored men are to be
provided with equal rights IN all inns,
the act is wholly silent as 10 equal
rights II restaurants and drinking
saloons. If we mistake not, II viii be
shortly discovered, through judicial
process, that the Republicans in Con-
gress were foolish enough 10 attempt
to enact a distinction which is without
a difference. If the keeper Of a drink
ing saloon may discriminate between
the persons whom he viii serve; If the
owner Of a restaurant may exclude or
admit NJ his pleasure those who call
for refreshments, It IS impossible 10
see any reason why the keeper
Of a hotel shall not have the same
privileges. Il is a notorious fact that
hotel-keepers have always supposed
themselves to possess this privilege,
as well rs that they are continually eX-
ercising 1t. Not only people Of color,
but white ladies unaccOmpanIed by an
escort, and other persons too numerous
TO mention, are now excluded from
many Of the first. class New York no.
tells. Grant that this Is an arbitrary
act Of the PrUprietors, unfounded per-
haps IN reason, and sometimes prOduc-
tive Of injustice, yet the fact exists;
and where IS the law Of Congress that
can interfere to prevent It? VIII any
hTr ATrrr e -
Constitution, OF its amendments, IN
der which Congress can intervene to
compel a hotel-keeper to admit drunk
ards, prostitutes, insane persons, per-
sons dressed II rags, or infectious
guests, to the enjoyment Of his rooms
and board:
The judicial aspects Of this question
derive fresh illustration from cases
brought before the courts to enforce
compliance with the provisions of the
new Civil Rights Law. The charge of
Judge EmmOus, Of the United States
Courts Of the Western Tennessee Dis
trict, on the 22d Of March, is notable as
defining the ground which it may be
presumed viii be that Of the highest
judicial tribunal IN this matter. The
denial Of full and equal enjoyment Of
the accommodations and privileges Of
thcaters and inns Of a State" said
Judge Emmons, "'is not an offense
over which Congress can give this
Court jurisdiction. These are matters
which the state alone controls" This
is precisely the ground taken by Mr..
Justice Bradley, Of the United States
Supreme Court, N a decision at New
Orleans last fall, n which the principles
Of the Civil Rights Bill were brought
IN question before the Civil Rights Bill
itself had become a law. Judge EN-
mons and Judge Bradley are both Re.
publicans