Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-10-04
UNDER JIM CROW LAW
CASE TO BE APPEALED TO HIGH
EST TRIBUNAL.
Prof. William II. II. Hart Tried in
Maryland Court and Fined
Five Dollars.

Information has been received here TO the
effect that the trial of the case of the state
of Maryland versus Prof. William H. H.
Hart of Howard University, this CITY,
charged with refusing to obey the pro-
visions of the "Jim Crow" law on a train
of the Philadelphia, Baltimore and Wash
ington railroad between Iron Hill and Elk
ton, Nd. was concluded late Saturday
evening, the defendant being fined by the
penalty that could be imposed. Prof. Hart
is back in Washington preparing, he says.
to carry an appeal to the Supreme Court
Of the United States, he having stood IN
the trial at Elkton on what he conceived
to be his rights under the Constitution
of the United States. set forth in what is
known as the commerce clause"
Prof. Hart was arrested September 1 last
by the sheriff of Cecil county, Md, be-
cause he refused to leave his seat in one
section Of a train and enter the Jim Crow
section. According to his statement, made
a few days thereafter, his case would have
been discharged the next day on a techni-
cality, but he preferred rather to make a
test case. He was released later on a large
bond.
In the trial, which was held Friday and
Saturday of last week, Prof. Hart acted
as his own attorney, defending himself in
long speech to the judges and jury The
clause of the Constitution on which he
stood is article I. section 8, subsection iii,
stating that Congress shall have eXclu-
sive power to regulate commerce between
the states, with foreign nations and with
the Indian tribes"
Prof. Harris Contention.
Prof. Hart claimed to be an interstate
passenger, travelling on ticket sold
through from Boston to Washington, and
in car which he believed was part of an
interstate express. He was told by the
railroad officials, he says that the train
was through express from New York to
Washington when he boarded it at the for
mer place.
In arguing his case on demurrer
which was later overruled, he marshaled ali
the cases of similar character that have been
decided by the Supreme Court of the United
States, and endeavored to show that the
decision of that tribunal, based on former
ones, would be favorable to him in this
particular case, although it had never yet
been before that court in this form
In an interview with a Star reporter this
morning Professor Hart said:
Inc circuit court of Cecil county i'm
posed the low fine of five dollars in order
that the defendant might be able to perfect
a record of the case for review on appeal
to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Such record is now in hand, coverinenthe
whole question of the interstate transporta-
ton of passengers. This question in this
form has never heretofore been brought be-
fore the Supreme Court; hence the pint
has never been adjudicated by that court.
But now the question will be brought
squarely before the highest tribunal in The
land for decision in this case. And those
familiar with the cases and analogous cases
determined by the Supreme Court from its
foundation to the present time, all of which
l marshaled and presented to the circuit
court of Cecil county, indicate clearly what
the decision will probably be; and that is
that no interstate passenger anywhere in
the United States or it's dependencies can
be disturbed in his transit in any wav NV
state laws of any kind whether they lie
police regulations or not.
This will clear the question in this coun-
try for all time. The present confused con-
d1tlon OF interstate passenger traffic in the
southern states will disappear, and one uni
form rule-that which is now observed in
the north for all passengers-will be OBJ
served in the south for all interstate pas
sengers, leaving the states, of course to
regulate their own traffic in their own way
within their own state lines, and in respect
to their own people.
Thus the case of Hart versus the state
OF Maryland will take its place beside the
famous cases establishing and confirming
this article of the Constitution"
Point Raised in the Case.
In the trial of the case Saturday Prof
Hart, according to his story, offered evil
dence In refutation of the allegation that
he was a colored man. He presented
printed record of his family, showing him to
have descended directly from an Anglo
Saxon, who came to this country from Eng
land in 1889 and settled in Massachusetts,
The court rejected the record as evidence
to which the defendant excepted thus leav-
ing that fact to be determined with the other
issue.
Prof Hart explained this morning that
his mother, whom his father married in
Alabama, was a daughter of a Seminole
Indian tribe, and it was from her that he
had some marks which lead persons TO re.