The Twin City star. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1910-19??, 1914-12-15
THE OKLAHOMA Jim CROW
CASE
by
Attorney w. T. Francis, St. Paul.

OF the most important innings FAVOR
able to the Negroes of this Country
that has ever been handed down BY
the United States Supreme Court, and
in view of the garbled and mislead
ing accounts heretofore published ir
the daily papers concerning it a briet
statements of the facts and the eff
feet of the decision will be of interest
to those seeking light in the matter.
The Legislature of the State Of
Oklahoma in 1907 passed an Act
which provided that every railway
company doing business in the state
should provide separate coaches and
trains, and waiting rooms-but equal
in all points of comfort and con-
venience-for the accommodation of the
white and Negro races. 1t was also
provided that nothing contained in
the Act should be construed to pre-
vent railway companies from hauling
sleeping cars, dining or chair cars at
Jacket to their trains to be used ex-
clusively by either white or Negro
passengers, separately but not jointly.
A penalty was prescribed both for
the railway companies and the pas
sengers failing to observe the law.
On February, IS, 1908, just before
the time when the act was to become
effective, E. P. McCabe, and four other
Negroes of the State of Oklahoma,
filed a Bill in Equity in the U. S.
District Court, against the Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., and
four other railway companies, to re-
strain them from making any distinc-
ton. in service on account of races.
On February 26, 1908, after the Act
had been in operation for few days,
an amended Bill was filed seeking to
enjoin compliance with the provisions
of the statute for the reason that it
was repugnant to the Fourteenth
Amendment and the Commerce Clause
of the Federal Constitution, and to
the Enabling Act of the State of
Oklahoma. The railway companies
demurred upon the ground that the
Bill failed to state a case emitting the
Compliments to relief in Equity.
Two years ago the issue was argued
before the U. S. District Court,
Justice Sanborn, Hook and Adams
sitting, at St. Paul, and although
very ably presented by the Negro at
torneys, a majority of the Court con-
sisting of Justices Hook and Adams,
decided against the Compliments,
while Justice Sanborn wrote a very
strong dissenting opinion which really
reflected the law upon the real ques-
ton involved. An appeal was then
taken to the u. S. Circuit Court of
Appeals and the findings of the lower
Court were affirmed and from that
order an appeal was taken to the u.
S. Supreme Court and the matter
was argued at the October Term.
One of the several objections raised
by the railway companies was that
the Act did not offend against the
Fourteenth Amendment "as these
cars were, comparatively speaking,
luxuries, and that it was competent
for the Legislature to take into con-
sideration the limited demand for
such Accommodations by the one race,
as compared with the demand on the
part of the other" But in reply to
this argument the Supreme Court an
swers that it is not able to agree with
that contention, and says further:
1T is not questioned that the
meaning of this clause is that the
carriers may provide sleeping cars,
dining cars and chair cars exclusively
for white persons and provide no
similar accommodations for Negroes.
The reasoning is that there may not
be enough persons of African de-
scent seeking these accommodations
to warrant the outlay in providing
them. This argument with respect
to volume of traffic seems to us to
be without merit 1t makes the con-
stutional right depend upon the num-
Der of persons who may be discrim-
mated against, whereas the essence of
the constitutional right is that it is a
personal one. Whether or not par
ticular facilities shall be provided
may doubtless be conditioned upon
there being reasonable demand
therefor, but, if facilities are provided,
substantial equality of persons
travelling under like conditions cannot
be refused. 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 the matter
under the authority of state law, a
facility or convenience in the course
of his journey which under substan-
TALLY the same circumstances is fur
nished to another traveller, he may
properly complain that his constitu-
tional privilege has been invaded"
The above quoted portion of the
oo;o;or ;s da~;dadtx, - fayor rs tho