Race Distinctions in American LawStephenson, Gilbert Thomas
History
Race Distinctions in American Law
Stephenson, Gilbert Thomas
African Americans -- Politics and government; Law -- United States -- History; United States -- Race relations
In Atlanta, in 1904, a certain Mr. Wolfe and his sister boarded a street
car and took seats in the part of the car reserved for white passengers.
The conductor asked them to move back, and when they asked the reason,
he answered that the rear of the car was for colored passengers. The
lady asked if he thought they were colored, to which he replied:
“Haven’t I seen you in colored company?” Mr. Wolfe demanded an apology,
and later brought suit against the company. The court held that the
street car company was liable, and that the good faith of the conductor
in honestly thinking that they were Negroes would serve only in
mitigation of damages. Two judges were of opinion that the company would
not be liable if the conductor used “extreme care and caution” to
ascertain the race of the passengers. The court held that it would take
judicial notice of the social status of the two races and of their
respective superiority and inferiority, saying: “The question has never
heretofore been directly raised in this State as to whether it is an
insult to seriously call a white man a Negro or to intimate that a
person apparently white is of African descent. We have no hesitation,
however, after the most mature consideration of every phase of the
question, in declaring our deliberate judgment to be that the wilful
assertion or intimation embodied in the declaration now before us
constitutes an actionable wrong. We cannot shut our eyes to the facts of
which courts are bound to take judicial notice. Certainly every court is
presumed to know the habits of the people among which it is held, and
their characteristics, as well as to know leading historical events and
the law of the land. To recognize inequality as to the civil or
political rights belonging to any citizen or class of citizens, or to
attempt to fix the social status of any citizen either by legislation or
judicial decision, is repugnant to every principle underlying our
republican form of government. Nothing is further from our purpose.
Under our institutions ‘every man is the architect of his own fortune.’
Every citizen, white and black, may gain, in every field of endeavor,
the recognition his associates may award. That is his right, and his own
concern. But the courts can take notice of the architecture without
intermeddling with the building of the structure. It is a matter of
common knowledge that, viewed from a social standpoint, the Negro race
is in mind and morals inferior to the Caucasian. The record of each from
the dawn of historic times denies equality. The fact was recognized by
two of the leaders on opposite sides of the question of slavery, Abraham
Lincoln and A. H. Stephens.”[52]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account