Year: 1875

Ben Buffers Interpretation ofthe Ner Lac.


Col. Robert Harlan, leading colored
Republican of Cincinnati, recently adj
dressed letter to Ben Butler thanking
him for his efforts In behalf of tie Civil
Rights bill, and asking if, under its pro
visions, colored men are entitled to the
privilege of saloons and barber shops.
To this, Butler has written a reply, as
follows


81 understand by saloons you mean
drinking saloons, and am happy to say
the Civil Rights bill does not give any
right to a colored man to go into a drink
ing saloon without leave of the proprie-
tor am willing to concede, as friend
to the colored man, that the white race
may at least have this one superior PRIV
nege to the colored man, and L never
shall do anything to interfere with the
exercise of that high and distinctive
privilege / would not advocate a bill
which would give that right to the color
ell man. If were to vote for any bill
on this subject, it would be one to keep
colored men out of drinking saloons. 1t
would be the greatest kindness that
could be done the colored man If he
was always put out of drinking saloons.
As to barber-shops, let me say the trade
of the barber is, like any other trade,
to be carried ON by the man engaged In
it, at his own VIII, and the Civil Rights
bill has nothing to do, or was intended
TO have nothing to do, with its exercise.
pleases, as the jeweler has to repair
watches for whom he pleases, or black
smith to shoe such cOlored horses as he
pleases In other words, these are not
public employments, but private bust
ness, IN which the law does not inter
fere.


From time immemorial all men have
had equal rights at common law IN places
OF pIblic amusement, In public convey
ances, and in inns or licensed Iaverns,
because all such business was for the
public, under special privileges granted
by the government Theaters were IL
censed by public authority, and protect
ed by the peace. Public conveyances
used the Kings highway; public inns
had special privilege or lien on the bag
gage of a traveller If any man was re-
fused, while behaving himself well, and
paying his fare, seat In any public
conveyance, or shelter in an inn, he had,
at common law, the right of action
against the party refusing. The Civil
Rights bill only confirms these rights to
the colored man, In consideration of the
prejudice against him, and an attempt in
certain parts of the country to interfere
with the exercise of those common-law
rights, and has enacted penalty as a
means of enforcing the right In his be-
half, in consideration of his helpless and
dependent condition. The Civil Rights
bill has not altered the colored mans
right from what it was before by the
common law applicable to nearly every
State In the Unien. 1t has only given
him greater power to enforce thai right.
All idea that the bill authorizes colored
man to enter into any mans shop, house,
or establishment, other than tls )se / have
named, is simply an exhibition of ignor-
ance, as well, In some cases, rs of insult
ferable prejudice and maignity. While
/ could sustain the colored man in, and
in insisting on, his rights under the
Civil Rights bill which were his at
common law, as they were of every citi-
zen, yet should oppose to the utmost
of my power any attempt on the part OF
a colored man to use the Civil Rights
bill as pretense to interfere with the
private business of private parties. 1t
is beneath the dignity of any colored
man so to do; and all acts, such as shut
ting him out from drinking saloons, may
be well left to the ignorant and generally
vicious men who keep them, as badge
of the superiority to the colored race. 7"