The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-08-04

nent. which is forbidden By the sections
(of the act OF 1870 IN question. imposes
no badge Of slavery or involuntary servi-
tude upon the party, but at most intringes
rights which are protected from state
aggression by the fourteenth amendment.
Whether the Accommodations and privi-
leges sought TO be protected by the nTst
and second sections OF the civil rights act
are or are not rights constitutionally de-
raandahle. and If they are frr~what form
they are to be protected, was not decided
Nor was it decided whether the law was
operative in the territories and the Dis
trfct Of Columbia, the decision only re-
lating to its validity as applied 10 the
states. Nor was IL decided whether con-
gress. under the commercial power, might
not pass a law securing TO all persons
equal accommodations on lines or public
conveyance between two or more states.
There was plainly sufficient doubt I'm the
court 10 deter the justices from declaring
their opinions as to whether the congress
should go further, and the congress has
not gone further. There was at that time
a record OF many eases OF a similar char
acter. not appealed 10 the highest court
and while they generally upheld, as an
outcome the equality of all men in politi-
cal opportunities. property rights, In the
courts. and, with qualifications. on pubic
conveyances, they generally accepted the
idea that IL could not he the object OF the
a prejudice or an anfipathy that was as
old as the world and as deep-seeted as the
passions.
1t has occurred TO many persons who
were dissatisfied with this decision of the
supreme court that the states would. ac-
cording 10 the drift of public opinion in
them, provide police laws intended TO Sc
cure the degree of equality contemplated
by the men who sought 10 embody in law
their Interpretation of the thirteenth and
fourteenth amendments.
Massachusetts, New York and Washing
ton are, so far, we think, the only states
10 provide such laws.
There has not been that strict diserim-
ination at the North and in the West be-
tween whites and blacks using public con-
veyances, that there has been at the
South. This is accounted for in part, by
the relative scarcity of blacks in the
northern section and their abundance in
the South. The travelling negro in the
North is usually well dressed and quiet:
in the South he is more apt to be untidy.
incorporate. boisterous and uncouth in
manners and conversation. But the fact
that all white men are not alike and not
all well-behaved is illustrated in the pro-
vision of cabins for women on the ferry
boats and of ladies " cars, in which il is
assumed that no gentleman" will occupy
a seat while a lady is standing. While this
separation of the sexes may be accepted
as reproach by representative males, IL
has never been made legal question to
test the right of common carriers to treat
men and women uneqCaliy.
AS early as 1867 a case was tried in
Pennsylvania TO test the rights of rail-
roads to separate blacks and whites, and
the decision in this case is now one of the
most familiar to lawyers. a colored
woman named Mills entered a train on
the West Chester railroad and took seat
near the middle of the car. The con-
ductor went to her, told her that sean
We're reserved at one end OF tue car Tor
colored persons, and requested her to
change her seat. The woman refused,
whereupon the conductor used sufficient
force TO compel her to take the seat he
had indicated as that she should occupy.
She brought suit for damages and OBJ
tanned verdict. \ writ Of error was sued
out, and argument was heard by Judge
Agnew.
Judge Agnew admitted that no one can
be excluded from carriage by public car
rier on account of color, religious belief.
political relation, or prejudice. But the
seat Mary Miles was asked TO take was in
all respects comfortable, safe and con-
venient, not inferior to the one she was
directed to leave. The case did not In
volve the assertion of inferiority OF the
negro to the white passenger. but. con-
ceding his right to be carried on the same
footing, ii assumed il TO be not unreason-
able to assign places in the cars to pass
engers of each color" The simple ques-
ton was: Whether a public carrier, in
tho exercise of his private right of prop
erty and in the performance of his public
duty, can separate passengers by any
characteristic other than that of sex?
Merit was not test. White and black sol
diers had been separated. and soldiers
were separated from citizens in transit.
THE right Of the carrier" said Judge
Agnew, ito separate his passengers is
founded on two grounds-the right Of
private property in the means of convey
ance and the public interest. 1t
is not an unreasonable regulation 10 seat
passengers so as to preserve order and
decorum and to prevent contacts and coli
lisions arising from natural or wcli-known
customary repugnancies, which are likely
to breed disturbances by a prom.scuous
sitting. This is a proper use of the right ~
private property, because IL tends 10 pro-
tect the interests of the carrier as well
as the interests of those he carries. IL
the ground of the regulation is reason
able. courts of justice cannot interfere
with his right of property. The right OF
the passenger is only that of being car
ried safely and with due regard to his
personal comfort and convenience, which
are promoted by sound and well-regu-
lated separation Of passengers. An anal
ogy and an illustration are found IN the
case of an tnnkeeper, who, II he have
room, is bound to entertain proper guests,
and so a carrier IS bound 10 receive pas
sengers. But a guest in an Inn cannot Sc
lect his room or his bed at pleasure; nor
can voyager take possession of a cabin
or berth at Will and refuse to obey the
reasonable orders of a captain Of a vessel
But, on the other hand. who would main
tain that II Is a reasonable regulation,
al fEVs f,E@ saE. ~ - -.
passengers. black and white. 20 room and
bed together? If right OF private prop
erty confers no right OF control, who shall
decide contest between passengers for
seats or berths? Courts OF justice may
interpose to compel those who perform a
business concerning the public by the use
OF private means TO fulfill their duty TO
the public, but not whit beyond"
The Judge regarded the proper regula-
ton Of passengers in conveyances as a
reasonable precaution against unruIy and
tumultous outbreaks '"The danger 10 the
peace" he said, "engendered by the feel
ing Of aversion between individuals OF
the different races cannot be denied. II is
the fact with which the company must
deal If a negro takes his seat beside a
white man or his wife or daughter, the
law cannot repress the anger or conquer
the aversion which some Will feel How
ever unwise II may be TO indulge the feel
ing. human infrnity is not always proof
against II. II IS much wiser 10 avert the
consequences Of this repulsion Of race by
separation than TO punish afterward the
breach Of the peace IL may have caused"
The steamer Sun ran between Baltimore
and Washington City. touching AT land
4r-r~ ~ ,r~srs Ea-~ 81,