15, 1883.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.

_Question_. What do you think of the recent opinion of the Supreme
Court touching the rights of the colored man?

_Answer_. I think it is all wrong. The intention of the framers
of the amendment, by virtue of which the law was passed, was that
no distinction should be made in inns, in hotels, cars, or in
theatres; in short, in public places, on account of color, race,
or previous condition. The object of the men who framed that
amendment to the Constitution was perfectly clear, perfectly well
known, perfectly understood. They intended to secure, by an
amendment to the fundamental law, what had been fought for by
hundreds of thousands of men. They knew that the institution of
slavery had cost rebellion; the also knew that the spirit of caste
was only slavery in another form. They intended to kill that
spirit. Their object was that the law, like the sun, should shine
upon all, and that no man keeping a hotel, no corporation running
cars, no person managing a theatre should make any distinction on
account of race or color. This amendment is above all praise. It
was the result of a moral exaltation, such as the world never before
had seen. There were years during the war, and after, when the
American people were simply sublime; when their generosity was
boundless; when they were willing to endure any hardship to make
this an absolutely free country.

This decision of the Supreme Court puts the best people of the
colored race at the mercy of the meanest portion of the white race.
It allows a contemptible white man to trample upon a good colored
man. I believe in drawing a line between good and bad, between
clean and unclean, but I do not believe in drawing a color line
which is as cruel as the lash of slavery.

I am willing to be on an equality in all hotels, in all cars, in
all theatres, with colored people. I make no distinction of race.
Those make the distinction who cannot afford not to. If nature
has made no distinction between me and some others, I do not ask
the aid of the Legislature. I am willing to associate with all
good, clean persons, irrespective of complexion.

This decision virtually gives away one of the great principles for
which the war was fought. It carries the doctrine of "State Rights"
to the Democratic extreme, and renders necessary either another
amendment or a new court.

I agree with Justice Harlan. He has taken a noble and patriotic