The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1907-07-18
Jim Crow Cars.
important Deliverance of the Inter
state Commerce Commission
Law is Not Discriminatory Where
Equal Facilities are Provided.

d
IIties are furnished both races. III
passing upon the cOnstitutlOnallty
| ,f the laws. which require railroads
. furnish separate coaches Tor the
{acrs. the Commission has settled the
batter for all time, declaring that
= he broad question OF the right under
| Ice thirteenth and fourteenth amend
lrnts- Of the Constitution to segre-
ate white and cOlored passengers
rs been upheld by the Supreme
curt OF the United States.
| The decision III the jim Crow case
.a4 written by Commissioner Lane,
{ California, and there was not a
dissenting opinion among the entire
Membership OF the Commission.
his fact in itself is significant, for it
bill be recalled that when the railway
ate till was before Congress, one OF
he most persistent arguments OF
red in opposition to the measure
Y it's opponents in the South, re-
tted to the possibility Of the people
that section being deprived 0f the
light to compel blacks to ride in sep
rate coaches.
1t has only been few months ago
lat IL Washington negro brought a
lit for damages against local
abroad for being compelled to enter
Jim Crow car entering the State OF
irginia The contention was ad-
[luced that the accommodations III
Ie ear provided the negroes did not
british the facilities in the cars
nccd at he disposal Of the whites.
verdict for one cent was given the
zero and that ended the litigation.
Ence that tine the AfrO-Amerlcan
ragur and numerous negro Organl-
ltiOns all over the country have
'gcd That II fight be made III the
Jurts 80 upset the jim Grow car
". The most recent cutlery against
c law providing separate coaches
r. The races was that made by Sen
or Foraker in his speech at WILDER
rec, Ohio, when he urged the
tgroes to resist the enforcement Of
y is law.
The case before the Interstate Com
crce Commission which resulted III
Ie decision unfolding the jim Crow
pr law, was brought by Georgia
awards, cOIOrcd woman, against
le Nashville, chattanooga X st.
nuis Railway. The negress was
rompted to invoke the provisions
the rate bill imnrdiatel Y after its
lssagc by Congress, and it was gem
rally understood that she was act
. for Il number OF prominent ne
'oes in the North and South. Her
rst move was to purchase Il ticket
titling her to first-class passage
ON Chattanooga, Tenn, to Dalton,
/. She entered the car assigned to
e. use OF white passengers and was
romptly removed therefrOm to the
+ assigned to the colored people.
FlrOugh her attorneys she filed Il
Jmplaint, alleging discrimination
the facilities furnished to her as
gainst those provided for white
lssengers
I'm the ease decided today it is held
lat where n railroad pro tides GER
lin accommodations for Il tirst-class
Issenger OF the white race it is com
banded by the law that like accom-
odations shall he provided for ne
'oes who have purchased first-class
'Eets. 1t holds that in this case it
manifest that the railroad has
tduiy and uujustly Disseminated in
ime particulars against cOlored
Ssengers and orders that where the
RlIruad provides Il wash bowl and
Dwcl i'll coaches for white passengers
I'd scparatesmOking compartments
mllar accommodations shall he
rovldrd for negro passengers pay
= similar fare.
The complainant, who had pur-
Iascd Il iirst-Class ticket from Chat
nOoga, Tenn, to Dalton, Ga, was
moved from Il ear for white persons
one Tor negroes and complained
pat she was Disseminated against
Pcause of her color and not afforded
+ual facilities. Commissioner Lane,
rIO rendered the Commissions de-
sion today said;
The expense of the small smoking
Impairment in the latter 1.-THE car
r whltes) accounts for nearly all
j. difference in cost between the two
rs.
He holds that the broad question
right under the thirteenth and
|urteenth amendment of the Consti-
ton to segregate white and col
FED passengers has been upheld by
Q Supreme Court of the United
ates. The opinion then continues:
Accepting these decisions as CON
lslve upon the constitutionality oil
lch laws, we turn to the considera-
IN OF the reasOnableness of such a
Ie when imposed by the carriers
ld this we find to have been passed
pom by this Commission within a
|" months OF its organization in the
So OF Council VS.. Western 4 Allan.
Railroad Company, which was de.
led i'll December. 1887. and which
Id that separation may be carried
lt on railroad trains without disad
Intage TO either race and with in
eased comfort to both.
Again i'll Heard VS.. Georgia Rail
bad company, decided February >
NNS, the Commission held that the
paration OF the white and coloret
lNSengers paying the same fare i.
}t unlawful, if ears and accommo
atoms equal in all respects are fur
shed to both and the same care
Pei protection OF passengers is Oh
rived.
W lille therefore, the reasonable
- OF such regulation as to inter
ate passenger traffic is established
by no means follows that carrier,
fay discriminate between white ant
lored passengers i'm the accommo
ltIons which they furnish TO each
lie principle that must govern i.
AT carriers must serve equally wei
passengers, whether white o.
lored, paying the same fare. Fail
e 10 DO this Is discrimination aut
blects the passenger TO undue anc
reasonable prejudice and disad
pntage.'
A Memorable Day.
jHP OF { he tDyS yya