The above is clearly another race distinction. Although there are many decisions to the effect that it is actionable _per se_ to call a white person a Negro, not one can be found deciding whether it would be so to call a Negro a white person. One event looks, in a measure, in this direction. The city of Asheville, North Carolina, in 1906, contracted with a printer to have a new city directory issued. The time-honored custom of the place was to distinguish white and Negro citizens by means of an asterisk placed before the names of all Negroes. After the directory had been distributed, it was found that asterisks had been placed before the names of two highly respected white citizens, thus indicating that they were of Negro lineage. From what has been seen, there is no doubt that this would found an action for libel. The newspaper report says: “On the heels of this suit brought by Mr. Lancaster [one of the white persons], it is said that Henry Pearson is seriously considering bringing suit against the same people because an _asterisk was not_[54] placed before his name. Henry is a Negro. In fact he is one of the best-known Negroes in Asheville. He is at present proprietor of the Royal Victoria, a Negro hotel, and complains that he has been the object of many unpleasant jests since the publication of the directory, and likewise inquiries as to just ‘when he turned white.’ Pearson fears that if the report goes abroad that he is a white man it will damage his hotel, and that the Negroes who make his place headquarters and who pay into Henry’s hands many shekels will cease to patronize his hotel, and that his losses will be grievous.”[55] This case is unique; whether it has been brought to court is as yet unknown. It is probable that to sustain his action it would be necessary for the Negro to prove special damage to his business; whereas Mr. Lancaster would not have to allege or prove any damage at all. But, save in such a case as the above, it would be hard to imagine a circumstance in which a court would hold that it is injurious to a Negro in his trade, business, office, profession, or in his social relations to be called a white man. NOTES Footnote 44: Eden v. Legare, 1791, 1 Bays (S. C.) 171. Footnote 45: Wood v. King, 1818, 1 Nott & McC. (S. C.) 184. Footnote 46: Barrett v. Jarvis, 1823, 1 O. (1 Hammond) 84, note. Footnote 47: McDowell v. Bowles, 1860, 8 Jones (N. C.) 184. Footnote 48: Spotarno v. Fourichon, 1888, 40 La. Ann. 423. Footnote 49: Upton v. Times-Democrat Pub. Co., 1900, 28 So. 970. Footnote 50: Flood v. _News and Courier_ Co., 1905, 50 S. E. 63. Footnote 51: 93 N. Y. 438 (1883). Footnote 52: Wolfe v. Ry. Co., 1907, 58 S. E. 899. Footnote 53: So. Ry. Co. v. Thurman, 1906, 90 S. W. 240; 28 Ky. L. Rep. 699; 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1108. Footnote 54: Italics the writer’s. Footnote 55: Raleigh, N. C, _News and Observer_, July 25, 1906.