Civil Rights Cases (109 U.S. 3)

States for the District of Kansas.]

UNITED STATES

v.

RYAN. [In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California.]

UNITED STATES

v.

NICHOLS. [On a Certificate of Division in Opinion

between the Judges of the Circuit Court of the United

States for the Western District of Missouri.]

UNITED STATES

v.

SINGLETON. [On a Certificate of Division in Opinion

between the Judges of the Circuit Court of the United

States for the Southern District of New York.]

ROBINSON and wife

v.

MEMPHIS & CHARLESTON R. CO. [In Error to the Circuit

Court of the United States for the Western

District of Tennessee.]

October 15, 1883.

''Sol. Gen. Phillips'', for plaintiff, the United States.

No counsel for defendants, Stanley, Ryan, Nichols, and Singleton.

These cases are all founded on the first and second sections of the act of congress known as the 'Civil Rights Act,' passed March 1, 1875, entitled 'An act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights.' 18 St. 335. Two of the cases, those against Stanley and Nichols, are indictments for denying to persons of color the accommodations and privileges of an inn or hotel; two of them, those against Ryan and Singleton, are, one an information, the other an indictment, for denying to individuals the privileges and accommodations of a theater, the information against Ryan being for refusing a colored person a seat in the dress circle of Maguire's theater in San Francisco; and the indictment against Singleton being for denying to another person, whose color is not stated, the full enjoyment of the accommodations of the theater known as the Grand Opera House in New York, 'said denial not being made for any reasons by law applicable to citizens of every race and color, and regardless of any previous condition of servitude.' The case of Robinson and wife against the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company was an action brought in the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Tennessee, to recover the penalty of $500 given by the second section of the act; and the gravamen was the refusal by the conductor of the railroad company to allow the wife to ride in the ladies' car, for the reason, as stated in one of the counts, that she was a person of African descent. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendants in this case upon the merits under a charge of the court, to which a bill of exceptions was taken by the plaintiffs. The case was tried on the assumption by both parties of the validity of the act of congress; and the principal point made by the exceptions was that the judge allowed evidence to go to the jury tending to show that the conductor had reason to suspect that the plaintiff, the wife, was an improper person, because she was in company with a young man whom he supposed to be a white man, and on that account inferred that there was some improper connection between them; and the judge charged the jury, in substance, that if this was the conductor's bona fide reason for excluding the woman from the car, they might take it into consideration on the question of the liability of the company. The case is brought here by writ of error at the suit of the plaintiffs. The cases of Stanley, Nichols, and Singleton come up on certificates of division of opinion between the judges below as to the constitutionality of the first and second sections of the act referred to; and the case of Ryan, on a writ of error to the judgment of the circuit court for the district of California sustaining a demurrer to the information.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 5-7 intentionally omitted]

''Wm. M. Randolph'', for plaintiffs in error, Robinson and wife.

[Argument of Counsel on Pages 7-8 intentionally omitted]

W. Y. C. Humes, for defendant in error, the Memphis & Charleston R. Co.

BRADLEY, J.