Los Angeles herald., 1907-07-12
RIGHTS OF NEGROES

Franklin K. Lane, the distinguished
California member of the interstate
commerce commission, has just rem
dered an important decision on behalf
of the commission concerning the rights
of negroes in railway transit. The
point involved is especially important
in the southern states.
The case on which the decision
hinged was that of negro woman
who purchased a first class ticket for
passage from a point in Tennessee, to
one in Georgia. The woman settled
herself comfortably in a car reserved
exclusively for white persons, but was
removed therefrom to another car sup
piled for negro passengers.
Commissioner Lane holds that a rail-
way company has a constitutional right
to- segregate white and colored pas
sengers, but not to discriminate in the
quality Of accommodation when rates
are the same for both classes. In the
case referred to the colored woman
was properly removed from the car
reserved for white persons, but the
railway company was at fault in not
giving her car accommodation of the
first class, as called for by her ticket.
The principle involved in that de-
cision sustaining rules for the segre-
cation of whites and blacks seems to
be of wide application. For instance,
if railway company has the consti-
tutional right to prohibit negro from
occupying a car reserved for whites,
why may not the proprietor of a hotel,
restaurant or saloon make similar dis
elimination? The only requirement in
enforcing such segregation, according
to the ruling of the commission, would
be as good service for the negro as
was supplied for white customers.
The conduct of negroes in forcing
their presence upon the company of
whites in public places is a frequent
source of trouble in the northern
states. The constitutional amend
ments involving the rights of negroes
are regarded by many colored people
as means for the enforcement of negro
equality"
But the amendments afford ground
for no such pretension. They safe
guard the rights of negroes on the line
distinctly drawn by Commissioner
Lane, but that is all. A negro may be
removed from car reserved for white
passengers, but he must be provided
with accommodations corresponding to
his ticket.
The same principle on which the rul-
ing of the commission is based in the
southern railway case would warrant
a landlord, a restaurateur or saloon
keeper in declining to serve negro in
company with white customers. 1t
would be necessary, however, to sup
ply the negro in some sort of an IAN
mex"
A decision relating to an interstate
case is not directly applicable, of
course, to such conditions as are pre-
looms. But the constitutional princi-
pie involved is necessarily the same.
Commissioner Lane says: 1.-THE broad
question of the right, under the thir-
tenth and fourteenth amendments of
the constitution, to segregate white and
colored passengers has been upheld by
the supreme court of the United States.
The right of segregation being funda-
mental, it's application necessarily
should be general Discrimination is
quite another matter, however, as
already shown. The rights of negroes
are fully protected by the constitu-
tional amendments, but those rights dc
not conflict with reasonable privileges
of whites, whether railway managers
or keepers of public places.