CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



157 



Strike out all after the word " amusement," in the 

 seventh line, as follows : 



And also all common schools and public institu- 

 tions of learning or benevolence supported in whole 

 or in part by general taxation, subject only to the 

 conditions and limitations established by law and 

 applicable alike to citizens of every race and color re- 

 gardless of any previous condition of servitude : Pro- 

 vided, If any State or the proper authorities in any 

 city, having the control of common schools or other 

 puolic institutions of learning aforesaid, shall estab- 

 lish and maintain separate schools and institutions 

 giving equal educational advantages in all respects 

 for different classes of persons entitled to attend 

 such schools and institutions, that shall be a suffi- 

 cient compliance with the provisions of this section 

 so far as they relate to schools and institutions of 

 learning. 



Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts, said: "Mr. 

 Speaker, of the justice of the principles of the 

 bill I can have no doubt. I cannot understand 

 how there can be a class of American citizens, 

 entitled to all the privileges and immunities of 

 American citizens, who can be, or ought to be, 

 deprived of any privilege or immunity or right 

 that appertains to any American citizens. 



"It seems to me wholly illogical,' as I know 

 it to be wholly unjust and wrong. The colored 

 men are either American citizens or they are 

 not. The Constitution, for good or for evil, 

 for right or for wrong, has made them Ameri- 

 can citizens ; and the moment they were clothed 

 with that attribute of citizenship they stood 

 on a political and legal equality with every 

 other citizen, be he who he may. And I repel 

 and repudiate the idea that there is any inten- 

 tion by the provisions of any one of these bills 

 to make any social equality. That is simply 

 an argument to the prejudice. 



" Social equality is not effected by law. It 

 can only come from the voluntary will of each 

 person. Each man can, in spite of the law, 

 and does in spite of the law, choose his own 

 associates. 



"But it is said we put them into the cars. 

 The men that are put into the cars and the 

 women that are put into the cars I trust are 

 not my associates. There are many white men 

 and white women whom I should prefer not to 

 associate with who have a right to ride in the 

 cars. That is not a question of society at all; 

 it is a question of a common right in a public 

 conveyance. 



" And so in regard to places of amusement, 

 in regard to theatres. I do not understand 

 that a theatre is a social gathering. I do not 

 understand that men gather there for society, 

 except the society they choose to make each 

 for himself. So in regard to inns. Inns or 

 taverns are for all classes of people; and every 

 man, high and low, rich and poor, learned or 

 ignorant, clean or dirty, has a right to go into 

 an inn and have such accommodations exactly 

 as he will pay for, and no other and no differ- 

 ent ; and there can be no discrimination made 

 in that regard by law. Nor is there associa- 

 tion in meeting a man in an inn. I am not 

 obliged to associate with any man that I meet 

 at the table of a railroad refreshment-room. 



The whole argument to prejudice I desire once 

 for all to repudiate. I put this question upon a 

 strict basis of right. This question will clear 

 itself, make itself entirely right, if it can be 

 let alone and taken out of the dominion of 

 politics." 



Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio, said : "This bill, as 

 I understand it, adopts as to public inns pre- 

 cisely the rule of the common law." 



Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts : " Not only as 

 to public inns, but in every other of its provi- 

 sions the bill adopts precisely the rule of the 

 common law." 



Mr. Lawrence : " And the bill is necessary 

 because the common law has been changed by 

 local statutes." 



Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts: "The bill is 

 necessary because there is an illogical, unjust, 

 ungentlemanly, and foolish prejudice upon this 

 matter. There is not a white man at the South 

 that would not associate with the negro all 

 that is required by this bill if that negro were 

 his servant. He would eat with him, suckle from 

 her, play with her or him as children, be to- 

 gether with them in every way, provided they 

 were slaves. There never has been an objec- 

 tion to such an association. But the moment 

 that you elevate this black man to citizenship 

 from a slave, then immediately he becomes of- 

 fensive. That is why I say that this prejudice 

 is foolish, unjust, illogical, and ungentlemanly. 



" But I have said that I did not intend to 

 discuss the general principles of this bill. They 

 are before the House and before the country." 



Mr. Niblack, of Indiana, said: "I desire to 

 ask the gentleman a question about the penal- 

 ties of this bill. If I remember correctly, the 

 penalty, if a person is found responsible for 

 damages at all under this bill, cannot be less 

 than $500. Now, if a colored man or any other 

 person is injured, according to the provision of 

 this bill, only to the extent of ten dollars, why 

 should the person who has injured him be made 

 responsible for $500 damages ? These citizens 

 of African descent and all others being on a 

 footing of perfect equality, why not make the 

 person who injures another under this bill in- 

 dividually responsible just in the amount of 

 damages sustained, no more no less, as in all 

 other cases? Why make this an exceptional 

 case? If there is this right at the common law, 

 why not leave it to the common law ? " 



Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts : " It is the 

 law now that a negro has a right to go to 

 a public inn and be entertained, and if they 

 refuse to entertain him he can sue for damages ; 

 but owing to the fact that a class of persons in 

 this country have taken away his wages from 

 generations to generations, he does not have 

 the means to carry on a suit, and as we have 

 given him these rights it becomes our duty to 

 give him the means of enforcing those rights, 

 and we put in this penalty because there are 

 portions of the country where there is not any 

 law which can be enforced in favor of a col- 

 ored man." 



