The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1914-12-05
jim GROW Law INVALID,
COURT DECLARES OKLAHOMA
STATUTE UNCONSTITUTION
Decree Withheld Because of Defects
in Application for Annulling of
ParlOr Car Act.

Washington, Nov. 3O.--h majority
Of the supreme court today joined in
an opinion that the Oklahoma Jim
Crow" law proviso permitting rail-
roads to furnish sleeping, dining and
chair car accommodations only 20 the
white race was unconstitutional, but
did not so decree because of imper-
fections in the petition on which the
case reached the courts.
The case was one in which five ne
groes, claiming the entire law un-
constitutional, sought an injunction
to restrain five railroads in Oklahoma
from enforcing it. The Oklahoma fed
eral courts dismissed the petition,
holding the law constitutional. The
majority Of the court affirmed the
dismissal because the negroes had
not shown they had applied to the
railroads for accommodation under
the law or that the railroads had
notified them that they would be re-
fused certain accommodations. The
majority, through Justice Hughes,
stated. however, that they could not
agree with the lower court that the
provision as to sleeping. dining and
chair cars was constitutional
minOrity-Chief Justice White
and Justices Holmes, Lamar and Nc
Reynolds--cOncurred merely in the
order Of affirmance, but expressed no
views on the constitutional question.
In the opinion of the majority, JUS
tice Hughes stated that previous de-
cisiOns that laws for separate
coaches for the two races were con-
stitutional were not to be questioned.
He then set forth the reasons for the
opinion that the lower court was
wrong in holding the provision con-
Istitutional
''The reasoning is" said he, that
there may not be enough persons Of
African descent seeking these accom-
railway in providing them This ar
gument with respect to tho value of
the traffic seems to be without merit.
1t makes the constitutional right de-
pend upon the number Of persons who
may be Disseminated against; where
as the essence Of the constitutional
right is that it is personal one.
whether or not special facilities
shall be provided doubtless may be
conditioned on there being a reason
able demand therefor, but if facilities
are provided, a substantial equality Of
treatment Of persons travelling under
like conditions can not be denied. 1t
is the individual who is entitled to
the equal protection Of the laws, and
If he is denied by a common carrier
acting in this manner under the au-
thority Of State facilities or convcn-
fences in the course Of his journey,
under substantially the same condi-
tions as furnished to another traveller.
he may properly complain that his
substantial privileges have been in
vaded."
The justice then pointed out that
defects in the petition presented an
insuperable obstacle to granting the
injunction.
The court did not intimate whether
in a proper case it would merely hold
the luxury" car section unconstitu-
tonal or whether it would decide that
this section being unconstitutional, the
entire law must fall. The five rail-
roads asked the court when the case
decided today was argued to hold
the entire law unconstitutional if the
luxury" prOviso was annulled.