Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-10-17
The Civil Rights Decision.
WHAT Mr.. HOLLAND SAYS.


Mr.. Milton NJ. Holland, who is one OF the proiac-
tors of the Monday night meeting, said, 1--WE don't
propose to make this party question. 1t Will be
meeting OF people, without regard to color or
party" Mr. Holland, in discussing the law OBJ
served that in his mind civil rights We're Identical
with personal rights. The Constitution entitled
them to Life, liberty and protection in the pursuit
OF happiness These were personal rights. 81 don't
think there are any such things as civil rights"
said Mr.. Holland. 81 believe them to be the rights
growing out OF political and personal rights in the
PROF. GREGORY,
In speaking OF the law, said that he understood it
grew out OF the spiritand ntendment of the amend
mentS TO the constitution.
J. W. NILES AGAIN.
"It was righteous decision" said j. W. Niles,
the apostle Of separation, commenting to-day to a
STAR reporter upon the published views OF colored
men concerning the decision. 81 will be at the
meeting Monday night and will sustain the decision.
we don't want any such law. There was no good
than the white people, and the muttonheads can't
see 1t. My heart is full. am glad of It,"
REV. R. 8. LAWS APPROVES THE DECISION.
Rev. r. s. Laws, one Of the delegates from the
District to the recent colored convention at Louis
vile, said, when asked by STAR reporter for his
opinion on the decision: $50 far the civil rights
decision Is concerned am not fully prepared to dis
cuss the position of the court. But can say this,
that am not in the fullest sympathy with the law
as 1t stood on the statute books The position that
Cne law sustained 10 the race was good enough as
legislative enactment, but to our constitutional
citizenship think the constitution guarantees all
the rights we ask for. I think can safely trust
myself with the constitutional provisions. Any
class legislation that may be enacted by party
may be repealed by another. II my citizenship can
only be secured by party legislation then feet that
the court Is perfectly right In their judgment In
nuulng the use of such law. am satisfied with
the decision SO far as am concerned. know one
thlng about 1t-that 1t Is uSelSS law. 1t haSnever
Qone any good In any case. 1t does not put any
DOdy into hTst-clasS accommodations In the south
nor remove anybody from them In the north. In no
case has 1T ever accomplished anything. l see it is
intended to hold meeting Monday night shall
attend the meeting, but not with the intention of
taking part"
JUDGE MILLS DECISION IN THE BELL CASE.
The decision OF Judge Mills, in the Police Court,
fning James W. Bell, the restaurateur, $500 for
violating the civil rights act, recently, was COM
mented on good deal and criticised by some, but
the decision Of the Supreme Court fully substan-
tates Judge Mills who was presiding In the absence
of Judge Smell. Mr.. Darlington, for the defendant
presented several cases to the court In which the
law was held to be bad. Judge Mills, in his elab-
crate decision In the case, which was printed at the
time In THE STAR, held just as the Supreme Court
mas ruled that the law was in full force in the Dis
tr1ct and Territories where Congress has full leg1s
lat1ve jurisdiction; but It held that in the
states Where the cases occurred that referred
10 Dy the attorney, the states had the power to
leg1Slate for themselves In this matter and the
cases referred to and the one On trial at the time
were not analogous.