The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-10-18
A LONG STEP BACKWARD.
Views of Prominent Men on the Over
throw of Civil Rights,
Views of Frederick Douglass and Colonel
IngersOl as to Its Efect-Political
Bearing of the Decision,
w ashington Special.

residence by reporter last night In his re-
ply to the interrogatory, "What do you
think of the civil rights decison?' he said:
ut is rather disheartening and 1 regard it as
a step backward. Justice Harlan takes the
ground that the fourteenth and fiftee nth
amendments were to prohibit any discrim-
ination in civil rights on account of race, pre-
vious condition, etc. 1 do not think it would
be consistent for me to say anything now, al
though the prompting is strong The moral
effect of the decision will certainly be mis-
chievous The country was going along
smoothly, and the unifcation of the people
was promised. AS l understand, the de-
cision only applied to the States and not to
the Territories. the District of Columbia
and the great watercou. 5es of the country.
At the close of the war, in view of the
services rendered by colored citizens,
there was disposition on the part of the
loyal people of the country to concede to
them complete citizenship and equal civil
rights in the use of all public conveyances
and institutions, and I regard the decision,
as far as 1 understand it, as part of the gen.
eral reaction naturally following the in
creased friendship for the South which
comes of the dying out of the old controversy
on the subject OF slavery. Nearly all the
concessions the colored people have received
have been the result of the antagonism of
the two sections, and as that antagonism
vanishes, l have expected a partial return of
the old ideas and usages which preceded the
war. Ten years ago told the colored peo-
pie that, as they had gained everything from
the enmity growing out of the attempted
dissolution of the Union between the people
of the South and those of the North, it be-
hooved them to inquire what they were
likely to lose by the friendship of the two
sections. The decision, take it, is in the di-
rection and interest of the old Calhoun doc
trine of State rights as against fed
eral authority. / do not, however,
despair of the ultimate return of the liberal
spirit toward the colored people which pre-
vailed Immediately after the war. l think
the decision in this case has resulted largely
from confoundng social with civil rights,
things which are entirely distinct. There is
no such thing as social equality resulting
from living in the same city with other peo-
pie walking on the same street with other
people, riding in the same car, buying goods
at the same store, or being fed and sheltered
at the same hotel. Men may be in all these
positions in civil relations, and yet socially
be as wide apart as the poles of the moral
universe. Whether so intended or not, the
decision OF the court seems to be a conceS-
sion to prejudice which belongs to an ex-
tinct institution, and places the American
people and government far in the rear of the
civilized nations of Europe and America;
for nowhere in Europe and nowhere outside
of the United States can any man be excluded
from hotel or steamboat cabin, or
any place of amusement or instruction sim
ply on account of his color or race Even in
Brazil the only distinction between men
arises from the fact that one is a slave and
the other freeman. A colored freeman has
everywhere the same rights in that country
as white freeman. The same condition ex-
lists in Mexico Canada and other countries.
1t is one OF the marked contradictions and
inconsistencies and absurdities of this pref
udice, that, while it is not offended at the
presence of a colored man anywhere as a ser
want or a slave it is enraged at the presence
of colored man as gentleman and as an
equal citizen.
81 have said that l do not despair on &C
count of this decision 1t is contrary to the
Declaration of Independence, contrary to the
spirit of Christianity, contrary to the spirit
of the age, and, as l think in violation of
the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments,
and tends directly to make the colored peo-
pie of the country an aggrieved class, and to
weakening that spirit OF patriotism which
the nation may need for its protection in
some perilous hour"
COLONEL R. G INGERsoLL.
II think it is all wrong, The situation of
the trainers to the amendment, by virtue of
which the law was passed, was that no dis
tnctiou should be made in inns, hotels, cars,
nor in theaters; in short, in public places, on
account of color, race or previous condition.
1.-THE object of the men who framed that
amendment to the constitution was perfectly
clear, perfectly we'll known, perfectly under
stood. They intended to secure, by an
amendment to the fundamental law, what
had been fought for by hundreds of thou
sands of men. They knew that the nstitu-
ton of slavery had cost the rebellion. They
also knew that the spirit of caste was only
slavery in another form. They intended to
kill that spirit.
Their object was that the law, like the
sun, should shine upon all, and that no man
keeping hotel, no company running cars,
nor no person managing theater should
make any distinction on account of race or
color The amendment is above all praise
1t was the result of moral exaltation, such
as the world never before had seen. There
were years during the war and after, when
the American people we're simply sublime;
when their generosity was boundless; when
their sense of justice was as keen as Christ's;
when they were willing to endure any hard
ship to make this an absolutely free coun-
try.
f'Ths decision of the Supreme Court puts
the best people of the colored race at the
mercy of the meanest portion of the white
race 1t allows a contemplate white man
to trample upon a real good colored man. 1
believe in drawing line between good and
bad, between clean and unclean, but l don't
believe in drawing a color line, which is as
cruel as the lash of slavery.
1 am willing to be on an equality
in all hotels in all cars, in all
theaters, with colored people. I make no
distinction of race Those make the distinc-
ton who cannot afford not to. If nature
has made no distinction between me and
some others, do not ask the aid of the Legis-
lature. am willing to associate with all