Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1912-02-10
OF CASE MADE
PUBLIC FOR FIRST TIME
President Warned That Appointments
Of Hook May Cost Republicans MANY
Southern States = Railroads Not
Compelled to Provide Same Service
For Negroes That. Whites Received.
Especial Correspondence

bench. President Taft's failure to nom
mate him no doubt will have been due
to political pressure brought to bear
upon the president because Of the par
ticipation Of Judge Hook in a Jim
Grow" decision relative to statute
Of Oklahoma This decision which
was rendered February 10, 1911, in
brief relieved the railroads running
thru Oklahoma of the necessity OF pro-
viding identical Accommodations. as to
chair. sleeping and dining cars. for the
use Of white and colored persons. 1t
was offensive to the negroes of the
state and elsewhere. and when 1t be-
came apparent that President Taft. in
view of hts own high respect for the
judicial abilities OF Judge Hook. in
tended 70 appoint him as the sue
cessor Of the late Justice John NJ
Harlan. the negroes held meetings OF
protest in various places and the pres
ident and his advisers were warned
that Il judge Hook should be appointed
the republican ticket might suffer In
q good many states where the negroes
might have the balance Of power In
close contest Hitherto only the bare
outlines Of the case have been gen
orally known and these thru hearsav.
hence an accurate summary OF the
facts may correct some mistaken I'M
preston.
History Of Case.
The case. which is known as that
of McCabe vs. Atchison Topeka &
Santa Fee railway. Css Federal Re-
porter). is not exactly on all tours
under
the familiar title of "Jim Crow" some
Of which have been passed upon by
the supreme court of the United States
That body has more than once anifmeo
the RIGHT Of street and steam raj!
roads to provide separate compart-
ments or cars for white ano coioreo
persons. In some OF these cases !he
desire OF the railroads. as representing
the committee. has been 70 MAINTAIN
separate accommodations. while IN
others suit has been brought by coioreo
persons for injunctions to prevent the
TRANSPORTATION companies from recos-
nizing any distinction OF race OF color
In the present case statute OF Okla
homa, enacted since the adoption oS
that state Of its new constitution. re-
ouired the railroad companies 10 pro-
vide separate coaches or compartments
10, white and colored persons. to marx
them suitably. and imposed hne OF
from IS to SIS upon any White person
riding In a compartment or car re-
served for colored and vica versa Inc
law provided for flne OF from *oo
to $500 for any conductor failing TO en-
force the law. A bill was brought to
erioin the railroads from obeying the
law and the suit was heard IN the
circuit court of appeals. consisting OF
Judges Adams. Hook and Sanoorn.
Judge Adams wrote the majority opin-
ion. Judge Hook concurred in 1t and
Judge Sanborn wrote an elaborate ana
spirited dissent.
The bill alleged that the railroads
were making distinctions In the CIVIL
rights OF the negro race and persons
~ the white race in the operation OF
their trains. in that equal comforts
and accommodations will not be pro-
vided for the negro race. that passen-
ger coaches maintained for the negro
race are not provided with separate
and equal toilet and waiting rooms
for male and female passengers OF
the negro face, nor equal smoking &C
communications. nor separate and equal
chair cars. sleeping cars and dining
car accommodations. These charges, q
majority Of the court held. are too
vague 10 constitute course OF ac-
ton. II denied the injunction and re-
fused to award damages as incidental
legal relief.
Gist ef Decision.
Both opinions reviewed exclusively
the constitutional phases Of the case
and dealt also with certain questions
Of fact which evidently were deemed
Of much i'm portance in leading the jur-
lists to their conclusions. The gist OF
the majority opinion probably may be
stated In the following words Of Judge
Adams +
1T may be conceded that the general
principle Of equality OF service which
pervades the Oklahoma statute and
which il also required by the common
| and interstate commerce law must be
observed by all carriers. AS general
rule, il carriers haul cars Of special
| and peculiar convenience for citizens
/; Of one race, they must provide equal
service for citizens Of the other race
Equality Of service, however. does
1Eot necessarily mean identity Of ser
vice; and manifestly this rule does
not require. permanent provision fol
, equal service. irrespective Of the do
mand for 1t. No mere question of abb
stract or tfeoretorioal right can re-
Equire the constant and regular equip
ment and hauling Of substantially
/ empty dining. sleeping or chair carr
i for either race. Practical considera.
lions, which are potent in reaching a
1correct Interpretation Of any statute
can not be ignored in applying the
! principle Of equality Of service to the
two races in Oklahoma. Neither car
i any such Interpretation be given t.
the statute; Of the state as would II
effect require carriers to render SER
vice to either race without compensa'
|tion. That would deprive them Of theii
j property without due process sof law
! We conclude, IN view Of these and
other nks considerations. that the prin.
|cipls OF equality Of service between thu
two raceS in Oklahoma contemplatei
Substantial similarity Of service, and
/ tnis; o;i;;y ww:Sses: conditions ard circum.
Istances Nn4sr which It 10 required an
;l.substantizllf the same
i 1mA1agea6iAoRn In q AaanorffnN aoen.