The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1875-03-24
v,s.s,.s enc es.sy n,sn.. s,ll.

It is evident that every city in the
country, Chicago included, will have a
Dumber-in fact, q large number-of
canes of violations Of the civil rights
bill. Foar or 6ve suits have been al
ready commenced here, and others
will undoubtedly follow In view of
this, it is we'll to understand the law,
and to inquire if parties can afford to
disregard it. 1t is proposed to test its
eeDstit.tioaality, but this will take
some time, and meanwhile the num-
Der of cases will accumulate. Can our
hotel keepers, restaurateurs, and
amusement proprietors afford to take
the risks which some of them propose
to incur? Let us see: The law pro-
yides that for each violation OF its pro-
visions tbs offending party shall pay
$500 to the party aggrieved, and shall
also be deemed guilty Of misdemean-
or. and upon conviction k1S6fi be fined
not less than 500, nor more than ST.
600, or shall be imprisoned not less
shan thirty days, nor more than one
year Is it wise. then, to disobey the
law, trusting in the rather slim hope
that it may be declared unconstitu-
tional? A test case will be made; and
until thes, is il nst better that they
shoaA snbmA as gracefully as posi-
BILE, instead of laying themselves open
to these heavy penalties? There can
be no excitement. no sentimental
splurge, no general indignation awak-
ened in Chicago owe this matter. The
gentlemen who are fined for such Of
lenses will be left to pay the sums
Themselves. There will be no dona-
tions from a sympathetic public, and
no frightful waste Of sympathy over
them. Men must eat, and If the law
were generally eAeyed in Chicago,
there would be no falling off in bnsi-
ness. and very little complaint over it.
ladced, we make the assertion that
the opposition to the law does not
come from the patrons of these places,
but from the proprietors themselves;
Let them yield. and the trouble will
surd = and II we may use vcry'trite
and homely expression, those indulg-
ing liz it are cutting off their own
noses to spite their faces The col
cred people are making application
for places in the theaters and for
meals at the restaurants for two pur-
poses: One is to test this question,
and have their rights recognized. The
other Is to secure a claim against the
keeper under the law. They can't
make $500 quicker than by suing for
it under the provision granting them
damages, ard nothing can please some
of them better than a refusal to obey
the statute. When their rights shall
be recognized applications will be al
most as rare as before; because, first,
no man able to pay fog accommoda-
tions desires to force himself on an
unwilling proprietor; and, secondly,
the pecuniary temptation will be lack.
ing. and nothing can be gained by it.
We venture to say that the proprie
tors complying with the law will be
far less annoyed than those refusing
such compliance, for the obvious rea
sons mentioned above Violations of
this law will prove a losing business.
and therefore as a simple matter of
policy, and without any discussion of
the justice of the matter, we advise
those concerned to cease their very
foolish opposition. If they desire to
test the constitutionality Of the law.
they have secured an ample number
of cases already. Let them rest with
these until they know the result.-In-
ter-Ocean.