A recent instance of race distinction in the court room seems to come from New York. A Pullman porter, named Griffin, was arrested in Montreal, charged with stealing a pocket-book, but the charge was not substantiated and he was released. He thereupon brought suit against Daniel F. Brady, who caused his arrest, and obtained a verdict for two thousand five hundred dollars in damages. The Supreme Court of New York reduced the damages from two thousand five hundred dollars to three hundred dollars. Upon an appeal by Griffin, the appellate division of the Supreme Court sustained the order reducing the damages. The following is a part of the opinion of Judge Drugo of the Supreme Court[660] whose order was sustained: “You cannot say that he [Griffin] is just the same as a white man, when you come to say how much his name will suffer. He might suffer more. But, after all, what are the probabilities about it? Is it likely that when a colored man is arrested and imprisoned he feels just as much shame as a white man of any circumstance might? “I think if you were to take the Mayor of the city and arrest him he would feel very much more humiliated than this porter, from the fact that he was the Mayor and not a colored man, for if a colored man he might not feel quite as much humiliation and shame. “In one sense a colored man is just as good as a white man, for the law says he is, but he has not the same amount of injury under all circumstances that a white man would have. Maybe in a colored community down South, where white men were held in great disfavor, he might be more injured, but after all that is not this sort of a community. In this sort of a community, I dare say the amount of evil that would flow to the colored man would not be as great as it probably would be to a white man.” NOTES Footnote 589: Laws of Ia., 1870, p. 21. Footnote 590: Laws of Colo., 1897, p. 115. Footnote 591: Laws of Md., 1872, p. 134; 1876, p. 469. Footnote 592: _In re_ Taylor, 1877, 48 Md. 28, at p. 33. Footnote 593: Bradwell v. State, 1872, 16 Wall. 130 at p. 142. Footnote 594: U. S. v. Rhodes, 1866, Fed. Case No. 16,151. Footnote 595: Laws of Ala., 1865–66, p. 98. Footnote 596: _Ibid._, 1866–67, p. 435. Footnote 597: Dolan v. State, 1886, 81 Ala. 11, at p. 17. Footnote 598: Kelly v. State, 1869, 25 Ark. 392. Footnote 599: Art. XIV, sec. 2. Footnote 600: Laws of Fla., 1865, pp. 35–36. Footnote 601: Art. II, sec. 5, par. 4. Footnote 602: Laws of Ky., 1865–66, pp. 38–39. Footnote 603: Bowlin v. Com., 1867, 2 Bush (Ky.) 5. Footnote 604: Art. III, sec. 53. Footnote 605: Laws of Miss., 1865, p. 83. Footnote 606: _Ibid._, 1866–67, pp. 232–33. Footnote 607: Laws of S. C., 1865, p. 286. Footnote 608: Laws of Tenn., 1865–66, p. 24. Footnote 609: Art. VIII, sec. 2. Footnote 610: Laws of Texas, 1866, p. 59; see Laws of Texas, 1866, pp. 131–32. Footnote 611: