The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-10-20
The Decision-Again.

The decision OF the Supreme Court OF the
United states In the ciyil-rights cases has
had among other results the effect Of deny
ing 20 The United States courts jurisdiction
in such cases. No more will Judge HUGHES
and Judge BOND be able 10 summon either
railroad companies. or theaire-owners, or
hotelkcoperS, TO plead In their courts to
indictments or to civil suits for refusing to
allow negroes to ride with whites. or to sit
with whites. or 10 eat with whites. The
negroes are RENTED TO the State courts.
But we are told that in Virginia the law
guarantees 10 the negroes all the rights at
tempted 70 be secured TO them by the civil
rights act. Is il possibley Who would
have believed it.? Then, in the name OF
eommon-sense, why complain Of the deci-
sion OF the Supreme Court OF the United
States? Are Federal judges and Federal
Jurors more likely 10 punish hotel-keepers
and railroad companies than state courts
and Stale iurics
Is there really any law in Virginia pro-
viding Tor the punishment OF persons who
deny 10 negroes these "ciyil rights !!
None whatever. Their rights under the
common law the negroes may ondeayor to
enforce BY suits i'm the State courts for dam
ages. But we do not suppose that Gene
raj MALONE or any Of his followers will take
the ground that a negro can recover damages
in a State court because a theatre-own-
or or railroad company refuses
him seat with whites. His COM
mon-law rights, with which the Coali-
ti,nists would now quiet him, Will not
satisfy him. The Commercial says that all
The Cincinnati lawyers interviewed agreed
that the proprietor Of a theatre has the
right TO refuse admission to a colOred man
or to white man if he saw fit. Yet the
civil-r;ghts law provided that negroes
should be entitled TO "the full and equal
enjoyment" Of "theatres and otherpla
OF public amusement" Surely there is
one difference between The common law,
a I'd the Federal law just declared null and
v)id.
The United States district attorney in
Cincinnati-CuANNING RICHARDS, ESQ.,
was The other day interviewed n she sub
jcel. He said
"The act Of March I, 1915. commonly
known rs the civil-rights bill, was in
tended to secure to ali persons within the
jurisdiction Of the United States the equal
enjoyment of inns, common carriers, and
places of public amusement, and IL under
took to punish any person who discrimi-
mated against any citizen on account OF
race or color. The equal privileges OF inns
and public conveyanceS are c0mmon-law
rights which can be enforced without any
reference TO the ciyil-rights law. But equal
privileges in places Of public amusement
had never before been recognized rs 4
right, and the Federal courts generally re-
fused 10 sustain this law so far as it related
10 places Of public amusement. holding that
no person Lad a legal right to attend place
Of public amusement except 10y the consent
Of the party giving The entertainment. The
decision 81 the Supreme Court does not
DENY the right of colored citizens to the
equal enjoyment Of inns and public con-
veyances. hut only SAYS that the Federal
Government has no power TO legislate for
the protection OF those rights
Consequently the Federal courts can
Now, rs to cOmmon-law rights. Are all
the provisions Of the civil-rights bill in
force in Virginia? Let Mr.. RICHARDS an
swer for Ohio and thus for Virginia. He
SAYS:
"Under the common law. as recognized
BY the courts OF Ohio, all citizens are enti
tied 10 accommodations in hotels, inns, and
~
either common carrier or an inn-keepCr
to accommodate a coored man would SUBJ
jcct him to a suit for damages, but there Is
no statute in Ohio making such refusal 4
crime; and now that the ciyil-richts bill Is
declared unconstitutional, there is no PEN
atty for such a refusal, cXcepta civil liabili-
" for any actual damage sustained by the
party denied his rights"
So in Virginia. There Is no law such as
the civil-rights act, the second section Of
which provided that any person who yio-
lated the first section should be liable 10 for
felt five hundred dollars for each offence, TO
be recovered in civil seton. and also to a
penalty of from five hundred to a thousand
dollars fine, or Imprisonment of from thirty
DAYS Ia a year, TO be enforced i'm a criminal
prosecution.
Are the Coalition candidates in Virginia
in favor of enacting law containing the
provisions of the ciyil-rights act! They
will not say SO; nor will they pretend to
privilege attempted TO be secured TO the
negro 10y the ciyil-rights act is secured to
him in Virginia by the common law.