Footnote 764: Herron’s Sup. to Sayles’s Civil Stat., 1906, p. 165. Footnote 765: Const., 1895, art. IV. Footnote 766: Statutes, 1906, p. 104. Footnote 767: Const., 1889, art. VI. Footnote 768: Const., 1872, art. IV, sec. 1. Footnote 769: Const., 1848, art. III. Footnote 770: Const., 1889, art. VI. Footnote 771: Code, 1907, part V, sec. 199. Footnote 772: Revised Stat., 1901, sec. 2282. Footnote 773: Revised Laws, 1901, secs. 18, 60, and 63. Footnote 774: Organic Act, 1850, sec. 6; Compiled Laws, 1897, secs. 1647, 1672, and 1677–78. Footnote 775: _The Outlook_, vol. 91, p. 78. CHAPTER XII RACE DISTINCTIONS _VERSUS_ RACE DISCRIMINATIONS Heretofore, the writer has let the legislatures and courts speak for themselves, withholding personal opinions and refraining from making deductions from the facts revealed. Now, however, that the various race distinctions have been reviewed at some length, it may be worth while to consider what conclusions the facts warrant and what practical lessons they suggest. RACE DISTINCTIONS NOT CONFINED TO ONE SECTION Race distinctions are not confined to any one section of the country. This conclusion is the most patent of all. There is scarcely a State or Territory in the Union where legislative or judicial records do not reveal the actual existence of at least some race distinctions. Of the twenty-six States and Territories that prohibit intermarriage, more than half, extending from Delaware to Oregon, are outside the South. Negroes have, on account of their race, been excluded, usually contrary to the local laws, from hotels in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Indiana, New York, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Iowa; from barber-shops, in Nebraska and Connecticut; from bootblack stands, in New York; from billiard-rooms, in Massachusetts; from saloons, in Minnesota and Ohio; from soda fountains, in Illinois; from theatres, in Illinois and New York; from skating rinks in New York and Iowa; and the bodies of Negroes have been refused burial with those of white persons in Pennsylvania. It is not meant here that Negroes are always excluded from such places in these States, but that instances of such exclusions are found in the laws. Most of the States have at one time or another made distinctions between the races in schools. California and other States of the Far West are demanding separate schools for Japanese. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa, besides other States of the Middle West, clash from time to time with their school boards for attempting to separate the races in schools. Delaware is diligent in providing separate schools for white persons and Negroes. In Massachusetts, until 1857, the school board of Boston provided a separate school for Negroes in that city. As to public conveyances, the term “Jim Crow,” applied to a car set apart for Negroes, was first used in Massachusetts, and it was in Pennsylvania