740 ���FEDEEAL EEPOKTER. ���reasonable and founded in good public policy. It will be seen I5y the author- ities hereafter referred to that wh crever carriers or inn-keepers have been permitted to provide separate accommodations, that it bas been required that such accommodations should afford equal advantages and facUities in every respect with thoae furnished whites; and even this discrimination, limited as I have mentioned, is not clearly justifiable. Cooley, Torts, 283 et seq.; Westchester, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 55 Pa. St. 200. �The case of Railroad Co. v. Brown, 17 Wall. 446, arose under an act grant- ing certain privileges to a railroad company, which provided that "no person shall be excluded f rom the cars on account of color ;" and the supreme court of the United States held " that this meant that persons of color should travel iu the same cars that white ones did, and along with them in such cars ; and that the enaetment was not satisfled by the company providing cars assigned exclusively to persons of color, though they were as good as tiiose assigned exclusively for white persons, and, in fact, the very cars which were, at cer- tain times, assigned exclusively to white persons." In Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Williams, 55 111. 185; S. C. 8 Am. Rep. 641, (1870,) it was held that, if a car had been set apart for the exclusive use of ladies, and gentlemen accom- panied by ladies, a colored woman eould not be excluded upon the ground of her color; but the court suggested that the carrier's duty would probably be performed if it furnished a separate car or seats equally as comfortable for colored women. See Bay v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, (1858;) Thompson, Car. Pass. 335; Hutchinson, Carriers. Where a colored lady passenger on a steam-boat was not permitted to dine in the cabin, but was ofEered accommo- dations on the guards or in the pantry, a recovery against the carrier was siis- tained. The court held that under the laws and constitution, and its amend- ments, of the state of lowa and of the federal government, a person of color is entitled to the same rights and privileges when traveling as a white person, and cannot be required by any rule or custom, based on distinctions of race or color, to accept other or different accommodations than those furnished to white persons. Coger v. N. W. Union Pack. Co. 37 lowa, 145. See this case referred to by Justice Clifford in Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 507, 508. A rail- road company may rightfully exclude from the ladies' car a female passenger whose reputation is so notoriously bad as to furnish reasonable grounds to believe that her conduct will be offensive, or whose demeanor at the time is annoying to other passengera ; but mere unchastity will not warrant her ex- clusion from such car whether she be white or colored. Brown v. Memphis, etc., R. Co. 5 FED. Eep. 499; 11 Hep. 424; 12 Cent. Law J. 442. Inn-keepers and carriers may provide separate accommodations for colored guests and passengers, but they must be equal in quality and eonvenience with those furnished white persons. TJie Civil Rights Bill, 1 Iluglies, 541, 547; &reen v. City of Bridgetown, (Dist. Ga.) 9 Cent. Law J. 206. See Cully v. B. & O. R. Co. 1 Hughes, 536. Also under the Pennsylvania statute prohibiting classifi- cation on account of color. Central R. Co. v. Qreen, 86 Pa. St. 427. Laws have been adopted in some states securing to all persons equal rights in the vehioles of common carriers, at theaters, inns, etc., and giving a right of action for the deniai thereof ; and such legislation bas been fully sustained. Joseph ��� �
