The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-11-20

MN or sneh circumstances occurring as will dis
pense with that tender, This law Is round IN
good sense. The inn-keeper is not TO select his
guests. He has right to say to one, you shall
come 10 my inn and to another you shall not, as
every one coming and conducting himself in a
proper manner has right to be received and
for this purpose inn-keepers are sort of public
servants, they having III return Kind OF privl-
lege of entertaining travellers and supplying
them with what they want.
These authorities are sufficient to show
that keeper of an inn is in the exercise OF
quasi-publc employment. The law gives
him special privileges and he is charged with
certain duties and responsibilities to the pub
lie The public nature of his employment
forbids him from discriminating against any
person asking admission as a guest on ac-
count of the race or color of that person,
Third-As to places of public amusement.
1t may be argued that the managers of such
places have no duties to perform with which
the public are, in any legal sense, concerned,
or with which the public have any right to
interfere; and that the exclusion OF black
man from place of public amusement on
account of his race, or the denial to him, on
that ground, OF equal accommodations at
such places, violates no legal right for the
vndication of which he may invoke the aid
OF the courts My answer to that argument
is that places of public amusement, within
the meaning of the act of 1875, are such as
are established and maintained under direct
license of the law. The authority to estab-
lish and main tain them comes from the pub.
lic The colored race is a part of that pub
lie. The local government granting the
license represents them as well as all
other races within its jurisdiction. A license
from the public to establish place of pub
lie amusement imports in law equality of
right at such places, among all the members
of that public. This must be So unless it
be--which l deny-that the common munich
pal government of all the people may, in the
exertion of its powers, conferred for the ben
eft of all, discriminate or authorize discrim-
ination against particular race solely be-
cause of its former condition of serVitude.
! also submit, whether it can be said-ip
view of the doctrines of this court as an
nouneed in Mum VS.. State of Illinois, 80 U.
S., 1913. and reaffirmed in "a U. s., 179--that
the management of places of public amuse-
ment is purely private matter, with which
government has no righttul concern? In the
Mum case the question was whether the
State of Illinois could fix, by law the maxi
mum of charges for the storage OF grain in
certain warehouses in that State-the private
property of individual citizens After quot
ing a remark attributed 20 Lord Chief Justice
Hale, to the effect that when pri-
vate property is affected with a
public interest it ceases to be iurs
privati only" the court says; Property
does become clothed with public in
terest when used in manner to make it of
public consequence and affect the communi-
ty at large When, therefore, one devotes
his property to use in which the public
has an interest, he in effect grants to the
public an interest in that use, and must sub
nit to be controlled by the public for the
common good TO the extent of the interest
he has thus created. He may withdraw his
grant by disseminating the use but so long
as he maintains the use, he must submit to
the control" The doctrines of Mum VS.. Il
linois have never been modified by this
court, and | am justified upon the authority
of that case, in saying that places of public
amusement conducted under the authority
of the law, are clothed with a public inter
est, because used in a manner to make them
of public consequence and to affect the com
munity at large. The law may. therefore,
regulate, to some extent, the mode in which
they shall be conducted, and, consequently.
the public have rights in respect of such
places which may be vindicated by the law.
II is consequently not a matter purely of
private concern.
Congress has not, in these matters. entered
the domain of State control and supervision.
1t does not assume to prescribe the general
conditions and limitation under which inns,
public conveyances and places of public
amusement, shall be conducted or managed
1t simply declares, in effect, that since the ma
ton has established universal freedom in
this country. for all time. there shall be no
discrimination, based merely upon race or
color in respect of the legal rights in the
accommodations and advantages of public
conyeyances, inns, and places of public
amusement.
lam of opinion that such discrimination
is badge of servitude the imposition of
which Congress may prevent under it's
power; through appropriate legislation, to
enforce the Thirteenth amendment; and,
consequently, without reference to its en-
larged power under the Fourteenth amend
ment, the act of March l, 1875, is not in my
Judgment repugnantto the constitution.
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
1t remains now to consider these cases
with reference to the power Congre SIS has
possessed since the adoption of the Fourteeth
amendment.
Before the adoption of the recent amend
ments it had become as we have seen the
established doctrine of this court that me-
groes, whose ancestors had been imported
and sold as slaves, could not become citizens
OF State, OF even of the United States, with
the rights and privileges guaranteed to citi-
zens by the national constitution; further
that one might have all the rights and priv
ileges of citizen of a State without being a
citizen in the sense in which that word was
used in the national constitution, and with
out being entitled to the privileges and i'm
munlties of citizens of the several States
Still, further between the adoption of the
Thirteenth amendment and the proposal by
Congress of the Fourteenth amendment on
June 10, 1866, the statute books of several of
the States, as we have seen, had become
loaded down with enactments which, under
the guise of apprentice vagrant and contract
regulations, sought to keep the coored race
in condition, practically, Of servitude,
1t was openly announced that what
ever rights persons of that race
might have, as freemen, under
the guarantees of the national constitution,
they could not become citizens of State,
with the rights belonging to citizens, except
by the consent of such State; consequently,