The Appeal. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. ;) 1889-19??, 1902-03-01

posed of the Hon. Fred McGhee, Hon.
Frank Wheaton, Hon. John @. ans
and Richard Morris, Esq, together
With other prominent Negroes Of the.
state, among whom was plaintiff III
this action. framed the above cited
statute, presented the same to the
legislature, appeared before the leg
lslatiVe committee and advocated the
passage of the act, which became, ON
said 9th day of March, 1899, and has
ever since been, aud is now, a valid
law of this state. 81
The plaintiff complains that, in his
capacity as an attorney at law, and
while In the village of Blackjack, in
this county, on January 20, 1902, he
had occasion to go into the barber,
shop then and here kept and man
aged by the defendant, Smith, for the
purpose OF paying for and receiving a
shave. That he defendant, when the
plaintiff walked towards the barber
chair Of defendant, said to the plain
TIL, 1t Willscost you S. to get shaved
here. II have never shaved a niger
and am not going to commence
now. That the plaintiff asked the
defendant il he had refused to shave
plaintiff solely on the ground of plain
tiff's color, and that the defendant an
sWered Yes
| The plaintiff called the defendant to
the stand for the purpose of cross-ex-
animation under the statute, and
upon the stand the defendant admit
ted that he demanded SIS of the plain
I'LL as the price of a shave; that the
ordinary price of shaving was fifteen
(l5) cents, and that he said he told
plaintiff that he never had shaved a
niger and was not going to begin
now. There was some debate by
counsel, rather acrimonious, and also
as to the definition of the word mig
ger;" and it was offered on the part
of the defendant to prove that he had
nothing personal against the plaintiff,
and in support of that proposition de-
PENDANT desired to prove that he came
from a family that favored abolition
of slavery, and that his father had
fought in the Union army The court
.overruled the motion and refused to
admit such testimony, on the ground
that it made no difference Under the
issues in the case whether his father
had served in the Union army. or
whether he had served in the Confed-
~
in any army at all; that the son would
be responsible for his own acts, not
withstanding he may have had an IL
>lustrious parentage.
The evidence in this case tends to
show that the plaintiff in this action
and the court thinks the evidence does
show conclusiyely that the plaintiff in
this action is a full-blooded Negro,
Of Gle -to -, ;1I..
Va, that when a boy he was brought
to Washington Territory by his
mother, and when a little boy he was
dutiful to his mother and labored and
found employment at any work that
ne got which was honorab Bile; that he
saved, by means of his labor and
thrift money, with which to pay his
way to college; that he attended the
University of Washington and grad
uated with the degree of Bachelor of
Arts; that thereafter in order to OBJ
tain funds with which to complete his
education and obtain a profession, he
worked as a sleeping car porter, run
ming from Tacoma, Washington, to St..
Paul, Minnesota, and as a waiter in
the Ryan hotel and other prominent
hotels, particularly at Niagara, Falls,
Detroit, Michigan, and in Buffalo;
that he attended the law department
OF the University of Michigan and re-
ceived the degree of Bachelor Of Laws,
and in a postgraduate course, the de-
gree of Master of Laws from that uni
Versity; that he practiced his profess
sion as lawyer for some years in
Chicago, Illinois, during much Of his
residence in Chicago, having assisted
the Hon. Edward Morris in his large
practice in that city, and was assist
ant. South Town attorney in Chicago
for two terms; that in the year 1898
he came to Minnesota and located at.
Bemidji, and have ever since his ar
rival in Bemidji enjoyed a lucrative
and large practice as an attorney at
law; that he is man that has ac-
cumulated some property, has his own
residence and Office, and a very re-
spectacle law library; that prior to
the alleged indignity which he re-.
ce1ved from the defendant he had al.
ways, especially in the state of Min
nesota, been accorded the full and
equal privileges of all public places,
hotels and accommo dations;s thar he
never had, prior to said time, been de-
MED the same privileges that were ac.I
corded to white men,
1t also appears in the evidence. that
the defendant is a. man of moderate
means and earns his living running
a barber shop.
In deciding this case the court is
aware that the issues in the case have
excited much public comment. and
that the audience attending the trial
has been large to such an extent that
1t was almost Impossible IS accommo-
date the numerous people in the court
room. The case has been eioquently
argued by counsel on both. sides.
Some comment was made by counsel
upon the fact that the judge Of this
court is a Southern man, all Of which
the court admits, the facts being that
this court was born at Ocean Springs
upon the coast of Mississippi; that
his father was a banker in New Or
leans prior to the war, and his fam
lily owned slaves-a matter which at
tnat time was considered legal and
right by the slave owners; but this
court has been educated in the North
(What little education he hasl and has
long since regretted that there ever
was such thing as slavery, and he
desires and has always desired to see
the co1ored man, the black man, re-
celYe equal rights under all condi-
lions and circumstances with the.
white man.
Now, the defendant says that he,
SAID ne never shaved a niger and
Didn't intend to commence it now.
Now. it is commonly known that the
4 word we Mi ger, " a vulgar word Of St
self IS used in connection with refer
.e en- TO the Negro race. The remark