Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/17

 LEWIS V. HITCHCOCK. 5 �Bkown, D. J, This is an action brought by the plaintiff to recover a penalty of $500 under section 2 of the civil rights act of March 1, 1875, (18 St. at Large, part 3, p. 335, Snpp. Eev. St. 148.) �The complaint states, in substance, that the defendants are "pro- prietors of a certain inn, to-wit, a restaurant at No. 9 Chatham Street," in this city, and that on the fourth day of November, 1881, the plaintiff, a colored person, was refused food or refreshments there by orders of the defendants on account of bis race or color. The defendants demur to the complaint on the grounds — First, that the plaintiff does not allege in bis complaint that he is a "citizen ;" and, second, that the place kept by the defendants is, in effect, alleged to be a mere restaurant and not an "inn." �Section 2 of the act above referred to provides that "any person who shall violate the foregoing section, (section 1,) by denying to any citizen, except for reasons by law applicable to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges in said section enumerated, shall forfeit and pay the snm of $500 to the person aggrieved thereby, and shall also be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor," etc. �Section 1 declares that "all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, pub- lic conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude." �It will be noticed that section 2, which imposes the penalty sought to be recovered in this case, is limited to a deniai of the rights referred to in the first section to "any citizen." The distinction between citi- zens and aliens is maintained in so many public statutes that it can- not be supposed that the use of the word "citizen" in this section is without reference to its proper signification of persons either born or naturalized in this country. The ordinary rule is that criminal and penal statutes like the present are to be construed strictly — that is, they are not to be extended beyond the fair and natural meaning of the language used ; and there is nothing in the nature of the subject from which it can be presumed that congress intended to legislate in this instance for the beneflt of aliens, so as to make it criminal for our citizens to refuse to aliens the privileges referred to. To entitle himself to recover the plaintiff must therefore prove that he is a "citi- ��� �