The advocate. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1901-1913, 1908-05-07

can people to tbs xHd that our inner
ent privileges sSsSSses conserved o.
, resto<sd,- 4 &}'HSssaA ~..
But, be the namssnf tho organixa
ton or It's Neutrality-suspicious. they may
its objects is tosmxke of this land
of the free bsttat sbiding place 70,
the Negro-to secure, to him all the
rights suarantssa by the constitu,
ton. In this we are one, and for
this reason We give to our readers
the appeal. whieR 16fiows. and ask
for it favorable consideration backed
up by liberal contrIhutiop, -
Dear Colleagues: -
Now or never must >colored people
decide whether they will accept the
Jim Crow" system AnB a fixed condi-
ton Of travel or whether they shall
hight the unjust law cand the petty
practice through all The courts, until
the United States Supreme court has
sQuarely and fully decided the cues
ton
There is wide spread belief that
the law is settled; that Negro people
can be compelled to ride in "Jim
Grow" cars, provided the accommo-
dations are equal and that this pros
cription applies to all passengers
whether they be- the Interstate of
intra-state. This belief arises from
two apparent reasons:
Flrst-Because, the separate car
laws OF the Southern, States require
II, and -Secoud--That the railroad
companies can independently Of any
u mr.
separation.
This belief springs too, from an
other erroneous opinion, namely; that
the supreme court OF the United
States had decided the second prop
ositlon and upheld the first. The
fact is that this court has done moth
ing OF the kind, but decided that sep
arate car laws do not apply to inter-
state passengers. The question of
the validity of statutes that require
passengers to ride according to their
color or race under penalties in sep
arate coaches, provided, they be equal
In accommodations has never been
directly presented to or decided by
the Supreme Court OF the United
States. ~
We are pleased to announce that
there is now pending in the United
States circuit court, at ST. Paul,
Mimi. case where all these uues-
tions can be and are sQuarely put
IN issue, and will be fought out:
Reed VS.. Pullman Co.
Statement Of the Case.
Mrs. Reed had a ticket for lower
berth, No. 4, from Memphis, Tenn,
to Hot Springs, Ark. :. After she had
taken her seat in her section the
n
her. Suit was brought against the
Pullman Co. to recover damages.
The company pleads in Justification
and defense the separate coach law
of Tennessee; also that it had es-
tablished and had in force and effect
rule requiring the. separation of
colored and white passengers, had
been abolished by the laws of the
State Of Tennessee. The case will
be brought for trial at the coming
June term Of the court and is i'm
charge of the legal department of
the Niagara movement.
Here then, is an opportunity for
us to have finally determined the
debated question, to-%ft: Can the
Pullman Co. exclude tSSlored passen-
gers from their sleeping, parlor and
dining cars? -.
We are confident ola victory and
we feel that the sum Of one Thous-
and ($1, 000) should be Immediately
contributed for the expense of this
trial--we shall need to bring orr wit
nesses from Memphis, Tenn. The
case must not fail for want of money
We therefore earnestly appeal to all
to subscribe and pay in the needed
amount now. Contributions may be
sent directly to the secretary of the
department, to Mrs. Carrie ". Cliff
ford, 1924 u. street, IN w. Wash.
ington, ID. c.. and Rev. j. M. Valid.
ron, treasurer. EE
Very respectfully,
FREDERICK L. McGHEE,
Secretary Legal department N. NJ.
Union Block, st. Paul, Mimi.