Minneapolis spokesman. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1953-07-10

taurant discrimination case ~
July 7. Tallcy, his wife and &c,
were involved. lie also charged
which returned a no bill with
violation.
Taliey said
Several persons have asked
me how II was possible for the
Ramsey County Grand Jury Ia
return n No Blll In tho case Of
Donald Ryan and The Lexington
Restaurant A. you will recall
three weeks ago, George Mum,
my wife and myself were refused
service at The Lexington THIS
article II an attempt 10 explain
Just how II was possible Tor
Ryan and The Lexington to ess
cape the arms Of the law,
In the first place, neither of
uR were naive enough 10 think n
true bllr would he returned, Such
attitudes were not of defeat. hut
II facing tho situation as II on
iated and Atill exists
In brief. let mo review our
case First ~ all, when We were
refused services we did what was
legally sound by calling tho police,
Although Il took ~ minutes for
an officer 10 arrive, Wa had per.
formed our role m citizens. On
his arrival, We stated our com
plant Ia him In plain English
We had asked for service In
tho form ~ dinner and later In
the form ~ short order food
Ryan had refused 10 honor our re-
quest. said rcfuaalH being accom-
plinhed by devious means, After
having heard our complaint the
Investigating officer suggested
that we leave and file q complaint
with tho County Attorney, This
was done the following day, hence
the Grand Jury investigation
why Grand Jury Investigation :
Al the Grand Jury inveatiga.
ton, Ryan stated that he did not
discriminate against ~. lie stat
ed that he was unable Ia serve ~
because he was rem0dellnR and
had only two waitreHsaH and n
large number 81 reservations
This story. though untrue. was ~
good enough excuse for the Grand
Jury 10 issue No Iiiil In favor
~ Ryan and The Lexington
Ryana untruihs and the Jury'H
non interest did tho trick.
The question 10 be answered
IL Why II ~ my opinion that
this evasion ~ the law was pos.
slbla because the procedures for
enforcing the state law against
discrimination In places 81 public
accommodation ara inadequate and
Ineffective.
FIRST ~ all the policeman VIM
answered our complaint might
we'll have stayed At home, lie did
not serve any significant purpose
at The Lexington Had be dan"
~ he would have observed that
there were five or more waitFeHasS
On hand lie would have reported
that there was ample spare 10
serve twice "a many people as
were there and also that Mr.
Ryan did moi have a party go
ing on Further hs would have
ascsriained from other persons
entering the place that Ssryic"
waa bring given without reServa'
ton. lie would have collected all
~ these facts that could have
been presented 10 the Grand Jury
by tho County Attorney.
This would not have been I'M
usual because this exact procedure
II used In almost all cases Of
probable law infrneti0na. Even
II the investigating officer had
done this. the County Attorneys
Job would have been difficult
Difficult because several members
~ the Grand Jury tsuppOSsdly
our peeruJ expressed negative at
titudsa towards our case
They wondered why We didn't
no ~ Road Buddiss' twhO, by
the way. serves more white people
than The LexinRtOnJ. They In.
fsrrsd by thsir questions that We
went there because we thought
va could make q case or diSenm.
nation. Our 20 called peers we're
confused on the IDEAS d freedom
and first class citizenship.
As long a. the laws relating 20
discrimination In places 81 public
accommodation are accompanied by
weak msthOdg Of securing sT.
dsncs. they might well be wiped
of the books"
Eash week on page four R-ws ~
the various churches serving the