The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-12-18

- C
ticket to be conveyed from one State TO another,
shall receive the same treatment and be afforded
the same facilities as those furnished any other
person holding a ticket Of the same class, with
out discrimination.
The motion to reconsider was tabled-yeas,
149; nays, l29.
Mr.. Crisp offered an amendment providing
that nothing in this act shall be so construed
as to prevent any railroad company from proyid-
ing separate accommodations for white and col
ored persons. He believed in the equality of all
men under the law; he believed that every man
should have the right to demand at the hands OF
common carriers as good service as any other
man. There was nothing in his amendment
controvertins this doctrine, and there was no
good reason why white men or eolored men
should object to separate accommodations. His
amendment did not force railroad companies to
provide separate accommodations Was 1t OBJ
jectionable that, in response to public sentiment,
railroad companies should furnish separate &C
eommodatonss Whom did it lnlureF Why
should Congress propose a law which might be
regarded as requiring an admixture of the races
ID the public conveyances of the landf
Mr.. SmaIls opposed the amendment, and said he
was glad that it was offered ny1he member from
Georgia. Colored men and women did have trouble
in travelling through that State: they had AGAR in
Georgia which they called Il second-class car A
colored man travelling from Washington to New
Orleans, when he came to the State of Georgia
was compelled by persecution or force to go into
this Jim Grow" car. He thought the good
sense of the members of the House would vote
down the amendment. especially the good sense
of those Democrats who were saying, are
going to be the best friends of the colored man
He hoped the gentleman who said, This great,
good man Cleveland will be good to the colored
man." would not stand out for the Jim Grow"
car Of Georgia. Applause on the Republican
side.
Mr.. Herbert advocated the amendment. Ii
adopted, the whole provision would mean exact
" what the amendment of the gentleman from
North Carolina (Nr. OHara) would mean, with
ont the words h4WithOut discrimiDatlOn.'
These words had been inserted simply
for the purpose of making the amend
ment odious and exciting political prejudice.
He objected to any law which required common
carriers to put colored and white people in the
same car. What was proper was, to give them
equal accommodations in separate cars. There
was no disposition on the part of Southern Dem
ocrats to deny that all men, without regard to
race, color, or previous condition, were entitled
to equal facilities and equal accommodations
while travelling on the same class of tickets as
other men.
Mr.. OHara regretted that the color question
had arisen in this debate. He held that, no mat
ter whether a 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 and the progress of the nineteenth
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
AOE1AN VI AACA eAANA E4ObANNAA@ AAAAD CA1NS@f -
should give voice and expression to protection
for all American citizens. Applause by the
Republicans. He did not believe there was a
single railroad in the land which desired to foster
any discrimination.
Mr.. Breckenridge offered as a substitute for
Mr.. Crisps amendment, an amendment provid-
ing that nothing in this act shall be construed to
deny to railroads the right to provide separate
accommodation for passengers, as they may
deem best for the public comfort and safety, and
that nothing in this act shall be understood as
relating to transportation between points wholly
within the limits of one State. Mr.. Brecken-
ridge said he didn't wish to See the rights of the
colored man limited or restricted in the slightest
degree, One objection he had to the amendment
of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Crisp was,
that it spoke of colored people as contradis-
tinguished from white people. Gentlemen were
mistaken if they thought the Southern people
wished to abridge the rights of the colored man
under the law: but if Congress prevented the as
sorting of passengers from the stand point of
public convenience and safety, it would infuse a
social question into a commercial question.
Mr.. Reed ironically expressed his pleasure at
seeingthe questioncbanged from one of color into
one of assortment. The House, which had de-
termined to pursue these 'tr0bbero barons, had
before it the plain question whether it would,
by enactment, confer on the same barons the
privilege of asserting their passengers. Certain
ly, some regulations must be adopted
as to the method of assortment. [Lau ghter on
the Republican side Were men to be assorted
on the ground of size, or on the moustache
ground, or on the beard basis2 He objected to
having these 'robber" barQns assert passengers
on. any fanciful basis they might undertake to
set UP.
Mr.. Reagan said the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Reed might make himself humorous about
'iassortment." but the fact remained that it was
the custom for railroad conductors to assert
passengers in Maine and everywhere else. If
the gentleman from Maine went to a train I'M
accompanied by a lady he would not be admitted
to the ladies' car.
Mr. Reed denied that that 1voc fr11a nf hoina
Mr.. Reagan, proceeding, said a drunken man
would not be admitted to the ladies' car. Did
the gentleman desire that a conductor should be
prohibited from using that discretion He (Mr.
Reagan attached no Importance TO the amend
ment of the gentleman from North Carolina. 1t
adopted no new principle, and his only objection
to it was that it had not been considered by the
committee, and was not connected with the regu-
lation of the transportation of freight. 1t had
been introduced for the purpose of defeating the
bill by appealing to a sentiment.
Mr.. Reed expressed his sympathy with the
solemn way in which the gentleman from Texas
had treated the manner in which he (Mr. Reed
had attacked the pending proposition. The alb
surdity of the proposition being pointed out, it
was left full Of holes. The gentleman from
Texas said the amendment of the gentleman
from North Carolina was merely an afirmance
of common law, and yet he had voted against
ii. If it was nothing, why these exertions
against it on the part of the gentleman
Mr.. Crisp said the great mass of colored neople
did not require that they should DO transported
over railroads in the same cars with white
people; all they wanted was equal accommoda-
tons.
Mr.. Henley desired to quiet any apprehension
on the part of the gentleman from Maine by
assuring him that conductors did not make any
discrimination on account of a gentleman's per
sonai appearance. The amendment of the gen
tleman from North Carolina had been brought in
for the purpose of defeating a measure intended
to relieve the people from tho aggression and
e%Xactions of railroad companies. He appealed
to the friends of the people not to be led aside
by any such proposition.
Mr.. Barnum asked Mr.. Henley his objection to
having the amendment on the bill.
Mr.. Henley-Because it creates enmity to
the bill.
Mr.. Barnum-The enmity comes from your