The advocate. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1901-1913, 1909-05-27
COUORS blind %JUsTICE.

nlaint OF Winfield F.: Cozart against
the Southern Railway Company may
have been based on the law, but it
will be rather. difficult to make the
average iayman ace that justice was
not raped.
II The uncontradicted testimony Of
Cozart., the complainant, a Negro
newspaper correspondent of Atlantic
CITY, NJ. j., was that on trip from
Atlanta, Ga, to Washington, D. c.,
he was compelled to ride in a com
tpartment. ;designated,."For Colored,"
: IN which, although he was accom-
panied by his wife, smoking was per
mitted.S 1t was further shown that
the compartment contained only one
toilet, wet and messy" in the eX-
IRENE, much to the annoyance and
, embarrassment Of his wife, and that
1T was Impossible to use the wash
basin on account OF the broken
pump. Nor did the defendant at
tempt to disprove the statement that
MO such conditions obtained in the
cars occupied by the white passcn-
! gers on the same train.
\ 1t was upon the statement of the
railway attorneys that of the PSI
cars owned by the company fifty with
but one toilet was used for white
passengers witout complaint, and
that occasionally, as in this instance,
the car as delivered by the connect
ing road Is turned SO that the COM
partment containing smoking
room, assigned to Negroes, being
next to the other coaches must be
used by the whites, that the COM
mission based it's opinion. 1t dis
missed the complaint because, as It
says:
.ys:. LIN order to make out a case OF
unluSt discrimination it must he
SHOWN That separate toilets are fur
nlsHed white men and women and
tnat the instances in which the car
1s turned are so frequent as to con-
stltute substantial deviation from
de1endant'S usual practice-Which
IS non-d1scriminatory We are or
the opinion that as to the turning Of
the car the rules of the defendant
are such as to remove that phase of
Inc case from the realm: of unjust
discrimination. aTha nnao-
uon OF separate toilets was consid-
cred by the Commission in the Ed
wards case, and no order was made
thereon. It is. apparent the same
conulClOnS exist here. Defendant has
NUMBER or coaches equipped with
out one toilet, which are used bv
"hlte passengers; and We think the
absence of distinguishing designa-
ZION Is not unjust discrimination
IL follows that the complaint
must be dismissed"
1t would seem also to follow that
the Negro passenger can find no re-
lief from the Interstate Commerce
commission for being compelled TO
ride as a frst-class passenger in q
compartment filed with tobacco
smoke, the floor Of it's single toilet
wet and messy" and lacking the
P'"''oSu lOF the white
passengers on the same train. unless
ne can show that such conditions are
customary. If a part Of the white
passengers OF q road are sometimes
furnished with the inferior euuiD-
meht always provided for the accom-
mediation Of all the Negroes, then the
olack complainant has no kick COM
ing, for he has not been discrimi-
mated against.
Now, wouldn't that decision make
Chief Justice fancy, peace he to his
ashes, feel that after all he was in
the right when he handed down tho
opinion which made him infamoua
II.
Ii the opinion referred to above
does not make the shade of Mr.. Jus-
''ce Iahey pat itself on the back, it
most certainly experienced a thrill of
JOY when 1t read the opinion of tie
New York justice who holds that q
Negro, acquitted Of a charge Of
the1t, should not DO given the same
amount of damages awarded to a
white man under similar circum-
stances because the black mans men
, tai sufferings are not SO intense, his
= Humiliation is not 50 great, his deg
Notwithstanding from such an ac-
, >c"Satton-1s not so low as that Of q
white mar similarly situated.
This New York justice must have
poem sui"ed by the opinion OF the
I North Carolina court, which awarded
! dafna$Gs 10 two white men whose
names appeared in city director,
Y preceded by n star, the DESTINATION
n foHSMesygro, but dismissed the suit Of
~ a 3IHnATO hotel kppncr u,bo So. =