The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1884-12-25
SOCIAL EQUALITY IN CARS.
An Awkward Issue Raised in Congress
Yesterday.

WASHINGTON, December lin th
House this morning, on motion of MI
Bratton, of South Carolina, Tuesday
January 20, was fixed for the considers
ton of appropriate resolutions touchin
the death of J. Fl. Evins, late member
the House.
The House then resumed the consider
alton of the interstate commerce bill
the pending question on a motion t.
table the motion to reconsider the vot
by which the House yesterday adopted
an amendment by Mr.. O'Hars, (colored
of North Carolina, providing that an.
person having purchased ticket to b.
conveyed from one State to another shall
receive the same treatment and be afford
ed the same facilities as those furnished
any other person holding ticket of th'
same class.
The motion to- recommit was tabled
yeas 149, nays 129: Mr.. Crisp, of Geor
gia, offered an amendment providing
that nothisg in that Act contained shal!
be 30 construed as to prevent any railroad
company from providing separate accom-
modations for white and colored persons
without discrimination. He believed lr
the equality of all men under the law
He believed that every man should have
the right to demand at the hands oi
common carriers as good service as any
other man. There was nothing in his
amendment controverting this doctrine
but there was no good reason why white
men or colored men should object to
separate accommodations. His amend.
ment did not force railroad companies tc
provide separate accommodations. Was
it Objectionable that in response to public
sentiment railroad companies should
furnish separate accommodations? Whom
did it ipjure? Why should Congress
propose law which might be regarded
as requiring the admixture of the two
races in the public conveyances of the
land.
Mr.. smalls, (colored) of South Carroll.
ma, opposed the amendment and said that
he was glad that it was offered by 9
member from Georgia. Colored men and
women did have trouble in travelling
through that State. They had car in
Georgia which was called second class
car. A colored man travelling from
| Washington to New Orleans when be
came to the State of Georgia was com.
PEELED by persuasion or force to go into
this "Jim Grow" car. He thought that
the good sense of the members of the
House would vote down the amendment,
especially the good sense of those Demo.
Gratis who were saying 1--WE are going to
be the best friend of the colored man"
He hoped that the gentlemen who said
"this great good man, Cleveland, will do
good to the colored man." would not
stand up for the "Jim Crow" car of
Georgia. [Appause on the Republican
side.
Mr.. Herbert, of Alabama, advocated
the amendment. If adopted the whole
provision would mean exactly what the
amendment of the member from North
Carolina (O'Hara) would mean without
the words without discrimination" !"
These words had been inserted simply
for the purpose OF making the amend.
ment an excuse for exciting political
prejudice. He objected to any law
which required common carriers to put
colored aud white people in the same
car. What was proper was to give them
equal accommodation in separate cars.
There was no disposition on the part of
Southern Democrats to deny that all
men, without regard to race, color or
previous condition, we're entitled to equal
facilities and equal accommodations
while travelling on the same class of
tickets as other men.
MIR. O'Hara, colored, regretted that
the color question had arisen on this
debate. He held that no matter whether
man was black or white, he was an
American citizen and the egis of the
great republic ought to be spread over
him. Public sentiment aud the progress
of the 18th century stared Congress in
the face, and it was too late for Congress
to legislate on the question of color.
His amendment appealed to the good
sense and patriotism of Congress. All
| it asked was that when the House was
protecting the property of men and
protecting dumb brutes it should give
voice and expression to the protection of
all American citizens. Applause on
Republican side.] He did not believe
that there was single railroad in the
land which desired to foster any discrim.
ipation.
Mr.. Breckenridge, of Arkansas, offered
as substitute for Mr.. Crisp's amendment
an amendment providing that nothing in
this Act shall be construed to deny to
railroads the right to provide separate
accommodations for passengers as they
may deem best for public comfort or
safety, or to make such regulations as
relate to transportation between points
wholly within the limits of one State.
Mr.. Breckenridge said that he did not
wish to see the rights of the colored man
limited or restricted in the slightest
degree. One objection that he had to
the amendment of the gentleman from
Georgia Crisp was that it spoke OF
colored people as contradistinguished
from white people. The gentlemen were
mistaken if they thought that Southern
people wished to abridge the rights Of
the colored man under the law, but il
Congress prevented the asserting Of
passengers from the standpoint of public
convenience and safety it infused social
question into commercial question.
Mr.. Reed, of Maine, ironically ex.
pressed his pleasure at seeing the ques.
tion changed from one of color into one
of assortment. The House, which had
determined to pursue these robber barons
had before it plain question whether
it would by enactment confer upon these
same barons the privilege Of asserting
their passengers. Certainly some treasu
ry regulations must be adopted as to the
method of assortment. Laughter or
the Republican side. Were men to be
assorted on the ground of size, or on the
mustache ground, or on the bear basis
Laughter. He objected TO having
these robber barons assort passengers or
any fanciful basis they might undertake
to set up. Laughter.
Mr.. Reagan said that the gentleman