St. Paul recorder. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1953-07-10

I 'NNNH"Nf NNR NiA*ttbi VI Ais
taurant discrimination ease on
July Z, Talley, his wife and Get
were involved. He also charged
which returned a no.bill with
violation.
Talley said:
Several persons have asked
me how Il was possible for the
Ramsey County Grand Jury 70
return No BIZ in the case OF
Donald Ryan and The Lexington
Restaurant As you will recall.
three weeks ago, George Mum,
my wife and myself were refused
service at The Lexington This
article is an attempt to explain
just how II was possible for
Ryan and The Lexington TO es-
cape the arms OF the law.
I'm the first place, neither OF
us were naive enough TO think a
true bin would be returned. Such
attitudes were not Of defeat. but
OF facing the situation as IL cx-
listed and still exists.
I'm brief. let me review our
case. First OF all, when we were
refused services we did what was
legally sound by calling the police.
Although It took as minutes for
an officer to arrive, we had per-
formed our role as citizens. On
his arrival we stated our COM
plant to him In plain English,
I'VE had asked for service In
the form OF dinner and later In
the form OF short order food. :
Ryan had refused 10 honor our re-
quest. said rrf,isais being accom-
plished by devious means, After
having heard our complaint the
investigating officer suggested
that we leave and file a complaint
with the County Attorney. This
was done the following day. hence
the Grand Jury investigation.
Why Grand Jury Investigation ?
AT the Grand Jury investiga-
ton, Ryan stated that he did not
discriminate against uB. He stat
| ed that he was unable TO serve us
because he was rcmodeling and
had only two mattresses and a
large number Of reservations
This story. though untrue. was a
good enough excuse for the Grand
Jury TO issue a No Biz IN favor
Of Ryan and The Lexington.
Ryans untruths and the Jury's
non-intercst did the trick.
The question to be answered
is Why? It Is my opinion that
this evasion Of the law was pos
sible because the procedures for
enforcing the state law against
discrimination in places OF public
accommodation are inadequate and
Ineffective
First Of all the policeman who
answered our complaint might
well have stayed at home He did
not serve any significant purpose
at The Lexington Had he done
80 he would have observed that
there were five or more mattresses
on hand. He would have reported
that there was ample space TO
serve twice as many people as
were there and also that Mr..
Ryan did not have a party GO
ing on Further he would have
ascertained from other persons
entering the place that service
was being given without reserva-
ton. He would have collected all
Of these facts that could have
been presented to the Grand Jury
by the County Attorney
This would not have been un-
usual because this exact procedure
~ used In almost all cases OF
probable law infractions. Even
~ the investigating officer had
done this, the County Attorneys
job would have been difficult
Difficult because several members
Of the Grand Jury (supposedly
our peers) expressed negative at
titudes towards our case.
They wondered why we didn't
90 10 Road Buddies' (who, by
the way serves more white people
than The Lexington'l. They in
ferred by their questions that we
went there because we thought
we could make a case or discrim-
ination. Our so called peers were
confused on the ideas OF freedom
and first class citizenship.
"As long as the laws relating 10
discrimination in places OF public
accommodation are accompanied by
weak methods OF securing evil
dence. they might well be wiped
off the books"
Each week on page four news Of
the various churches serving the
religious needs Of the community
II found. Consult the church news