The only phase of these “Jim Crow” street-car laws which has given rise to any serious discussion is the question of the exemptions from application. Most of the States and cities simply except nurses of one race in attendance upon the children or sick of the other race, the nurse going into the car to which the child or sick person belongs. Of course, the street-car employees are excepted, and Virginia excepts officers in charge of prisoners and lunatics. But Florida and North Carolina declared that the law should not apply to _colored_ nurses in attendance upon _white_ children or _white_ sick people; and Augusta, Georgia, has the same in its ordinance. The constitutionality of the Florida law was tested five years ago in the Supreme Court[587] of that State, and was declared to violate the Fourteenth Amendment, the court, in its opinion, saying: “It gives to the Caucasian mistress the right to have her child attended in the Caucasian department of the car by its African nurse, and withholds from the African mistress the equal right to have her child attended in the African department by its Caucasian nurse.” This is the same discrimination as to the invalid adult Caucasian attended by a colored nurse. As soon as the Florida State law was declared unconstitutional, the cities passed ordinances making the provision apply to nurses of either race. The North Carolina law was never tested, for it was amended before a test case reached the courts. The North Carolina legislature[588] of 1909 obviated all possible difficulty by amending its law to the effect that the nurses of the children or sick or infirm of one race might ride in the car set apart for the race of the infant or sick or infirm person so attended. NOTES Footnote 517: _Century Dictionary_, I, p. 546. Footnote 518: _Ibid._, IV, p. 3233. Footnote 519: Laws of Fla., 1865, p. 24. Footnote 520: Laws of Miss., 1865, pp. 231–32. Footnote 521: Laws of Texas, 1866, p. 97. Footnote 522: Laws of Ga., 1870, pp. 427–28. Footnote 523: Laws of Texas, 1871, 2d sess., p. 16. Footnote 524: Acts of La., 1873, pp. 156–57. Footnote 525: Acts of Ark., 1873, pp. 15–19. Footnote 526: Acts and Resolves of Mass., 1866–67, p. 242. Footnote 527: Laws of Pa., 1867, pp. 38–39. Footnote 528: Laws of Del., 1875–77, p. 322. Footnote 529: Derry v. Lowry, 1865, 6 Phila. Rep. 30. Footnote 530: West Chester and Phila. Ry. Co. v. Mills, 1867, 55 Pa. S. 209. Footnote 531: Pleasant v. N. B. & M. Ry. Co., 1868, 34 Calif. 586. Footnote 532: C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 1870, 55 Ill. 185. Footnote 533: Coger v. N. W. Union Packet Co., 1873, 37 Ia. 145. Footnote 534: Ry. Co. v. Brown, 1873, 17 Wall, 445. Footnote 535: Acts of La., 1869, p. 37. Footnote 536: 95 U. S. 485, at p. 489 (1875). Footnote 537: U. S. v. Dodge, 1877, Fed. Case No. 14,976. Footnote 538: Pub. Laws of N. C., 1899, pp. 539–40.