The sun., 1918-07-17
A Legal Decision on Caste Customs
In Harlem.

q restaurant where colored persons
are served with meals. ARTHUR
COIN. who is described In a legal
paper hereinafter referred to as "a
Hebrew white person." went into
GoLpGRABEN's restaurant with n col
ored man named WILLIAMS for the
purpose Of getting meal. The head
waiter refused to serve COIN and
WILLIAMS on the ground that it was
against the rules of the house to
serve mixed party" CoHN brought
suit against GoLDGRAnES in the Sec
ond District Municipal Court, where
the complaint was dismissed after n
trial before jury. The plaintiff
took the case to the Appellate Divi.
sion Of the Supreme Court, and that
bench has just upheld the Judgment
Of the lower court. The majority
opinion is written by Mr.. Justice
WHITAKER, who snys that there wns
no refusal to serve because OF color
or race:
The plaintiff was white and his COM
panion was colored. They were both re-
fused service. SO IT could not have been
on account OF color The rule that
mixed parties should not be served APP
piled TO white as well as colored. There
was no discrimination as to one color
n favor OF another.
The record plainly indicates that both
parties would have been served at sep
arate tables and that plaintiff knew
this and refused service at a separate
table. How can It be said then that he
was refused service on account OF his
COLOR"
1t appears that the original COM
plant alleged that the plaintiff was
descendant OF the Jewish or He
brew race" and that refreshment was
refused him because of his race. This
latter allegation was abandoned ut
the trial and the case was decided on
the matter of color only.
The decision Of the appellate court
was not unanimous, for Mr.. Justice
BLUR dlssented as followst
THE uncontradicted evidence In this
case Is to the effect that plaintiff.
white man. as the guest OF one WILL
AMs, colored mai, went to defend
ants restaurant to be served. At the
time they entered all the guests and
walters in defendants restaurant were
colored As plaintiff and WILLIAMS
seated themselves the head waiter said
to them: Gentlemen, l am sorry
cannot serve you. It is against the
party. WILLIAMS testified: They said
they cannot serve a colored and
white person together Whereupon
plaintiff and WILLIAMS, after some dis
cusslon. left the premises.
THE Civil Rights law. as amended by
Chapter PCS OF the Laws OF 1918. Sec
ton 40. provides that no owner OF
restaurant shall directly or indirectly
refuse. withhold from or deny to any
person any of the accommodations, ad-
vantages or privileges thereof
on account OF race, creed or color 1t
seems TO me to be clear that plaintiff
was, on the occasion in question. denied
the privileges of defendants restaurant
because he was white. The defendant
virtually said to plaintiff: IF you were
colored and came here with WILLIAMS
you would be served. but being white.
we will not serve you, Tho law natur-
ally does not undertake to define or even
to indicate which II any race or color
may be regarded as superior. It's sole
and manifest purpose is to prevent dis
elimination on that account"
1t would seem to the layman that
Mr.. Justice BIJuRs point Is we'll
taken and that Mr.. Conn should not
have been denied the accommodation
advantage or privilege of sitting at
the same table with Mr.. WILLIAMS.