The Negro in Chicago: A Study of Race Relations and a Race Riot

by Chicago Commission on Race Relations

E. CONTACTS IN OTHER RELATIONS

Here are included:

I. Contacts in public places, such as restaurants, department stores, theaters, and personal-service places.

II. "Black and tan" resorts, which present a much-criticized association because of the vicious elements of whites and Negroes in contact there.

III. Cultural contacts which indicate associations on a purely intellectual basis.

IV. Contacts in co-operative efforts for race betterment, which includes most of the social organizations working among Negroes.

I. CONTACTS IN PUBLIC PLACES

On the street, in public conveyances, stores, restaurants, and commercial places of amusement, contacts of races and nationalities are unavoidable and have not the supervision that is common in schools or even public amusement places.

Where large numbers of Negroes live there are theaters, restaurants, stores, barber shops, and personal-service places, which are used by Negroes in the proportion in which they predominate in the population of the area. In any or all of these places, however, white persons are served.

The business district along State Street between Twenty-sixth and Forty-seventh, and on the car-line cross-streets, is maintained partly by, and largely for, the Negro residents in the general neighborhood. Since, however, about 50 per cent of the population is white, there are personal-service places which are used almost exclusively by whites. Barber shops are wholly exclusive, and several restaurants attempt to make themselves so. For example:

At Thirty-first Street and Indiana Avenue, in the heart of the Negro residence area, a restaurant proprietor maintains an L-shaped establishment. Fronting on Thirty-first Street is a neatly arranged and well-kept dining-room, with tables for ladies, and a lunch counter with white waiters. Fronting on Indiana Avenue is a narrow, dark dining-room, with a counter served by colored waitresses. It is not kept neatly, and is not so well supplied. Both dining-rooms are served from the kitchen in the corner of the L, and patrons in either dining-room would never suspect that there were two dining-rooms with connection through this kitchen. At the time of the investigation, the dining-rooms had different names.

Negroes entering the Indiana Avenue dining-room are given prompt service. If they enter the Thirty-first Street room they are given indifferent service, are required to wait long and the service given them is reluctant and discourteous.

At another restaurant in the same neighborhood, similar means are used to discourage Negro patronage. Sometimes in addition to long waiting and discourtesy, food is spoiled. For example, egg shells are placed in egg orders, and salt is poured into the food.

In the districts where whites predominate, the measures taken to exclude Negroes are very definite. In a lunchroom near Forty-third Street and Vincennes Avenue, a well-educated, well-appearing young Negro had the following experience:

I went into the restaurant about two o'clock June 13, and sat about four seats from the front at a counter. After about ten minutes the waiter came and asked me to move to a seat at the rear of the counter. I asked him why and he told me he could not serve me where I was sitting. He said the management reserved the right to seat its guests, and pointed to a sign on the wall bearing that notice. I asked him if he could not serve me just as well where I was sitting as on the rear counter. He said maybe he could, but it was a rule of the house not to, and he would not. I left without being served.

Another Negro experience in a lunchroom on Forty-third Street near the Elevated is thus described: "Service given was very poor. When protest was made, the police were called and the young man was arrested for disorderly conduct. The case was dismissed."

Fifty-ninth and Halsted streets: "Service refused in a Swedish café. No witnesses."

Near Berwyn and Broadway (North Side): "Service refused, and investigator ordered out."

In the "Loop," experiences are widely varied. In all of the following cases, carefully selected investigators were sent and asked to report in detail what happened. It is possible to gather large numbers of personal experiences, from any group of Negroes, but as the facts cannot be verified they have not been used. These instances usually go unnoticed by all but the participants, except where the parties offended may secure witnesses among the guests present, which is difficult.

At a large, popular, general restaurant on Randolph Street, two women investigators had this typical experience showing how a manager can refuse service, and still attempt to keep within the law:

Entered about 7:30 p.m. The restaurant was well filled; I counted only six vacant tables. A woman head waitress took us through the main dining-room to the annex, where another head waitress preceded us down the length of the room to a corner table in the rear. There was a vacant table on either side of us. We waited almost a half hour, with no attention, until a couple was seated at the next table. When the waitress brought water to them she also brought water to us. She took the orders for both tables. Mrs. H—— ordered steak, salad and tea. I ordered chicken salad and tea. Steak and potatoes were served to the next table in about ten minutes. The waitress came to me and said the chef said he was out of chicken. I ordered steak. After another long period of waiting, she came back and said, "The chef says he is out of small steaks." I asked, "What have you?" She said she would go and see. She did not return, but after about fifteen minutes a man came to our table, put his hands on it, leaned down and said, "Do you want to see me?" Although I suspected he was the manager, he had not said so, and I replied, "Who are you? I don't know anything about you. No, we don't want to see you." He then said, "I am the manager. What do you want?" "I came to be served with dinner." He replied, "We have nothing to serve you." I asked, "Why, what is the reason?" He replied "There is no reason; we haven't anything to serve you." He was evidently cautious to keep within the letter of the law, but was determined that we should not be served. He would give no reason, simply repeating his former statement. We left without further discussion, and without being served.

Mrs. T—— says the waitress was courteous, and evidently regretful of the embarrassment of repeated refusal to serve. None of the patrons sitting near made any protest at their presence. It has been her experience that patrons, waitresses, ushers in theaters rarely show any hesitancy in accepting the presence of colored people who are orderly and self-respecting. Almost invariably the disagreeable incidents happen through the management, or through the carrying out of orders.

An interview with the manager of this restaurant was willingly given to a white investigator who later visited the place, and questions were answered freely and carefully. He said he had a number of Negro friends and appreciated the differences in them, as he did in whites. The main points in a long discussion of restaurant management in general, and the particular problem with reference to serving Negroes, he summed up as follows:

In the past five years, only one Negro has been served in this restaurant. She came in with a southern family as maid to a small child. The family was told that she could be served at a table with them, or in a side room, but could not be served at an adjoining table, even with the child. After some discussion, the maid ate at one end of a long table with the child, while the family sat at the other end.

At the time of the recent instance, when the two Negro women came in, the manager was not in the restaurant. From what he was told of the incident, he thinks he should have asked them to come to the office, and explained the situation to them. He had no doubt they would have understood, as he has always found intelligent Negroes readily responsive to the things which might be injurious to their relations with whites.

Before he was manager, a man brought in two Negroes, seemingly to get a basis for a suit and damages. The manager offered to serve them in a side room, but refused service in the main dining-room. They left without being served, and nothing further was heard from them.

In former years he had seen dishes broken in the presence of Negroes after being used in high-grade restaurants where their patronage was not wanted.

Barring Negroes was not personal, he said. A successful restaurant must watch closely the desires of its patrons, and not allow anything to interfere with smooth running. Complaints are made after each appearance of Negroes. He did not know what he would do if Negroes insisted on being served, but was firm that no Negro could be served in the main dining-rooms. He would vary procedure to suit the circumstances.

The following case, illustrative of the witnesses and testimony necessary to a court decision, was tried before Judge Adams, and damages of $100 with costs were awarded:

In August, 1920, Miss Lillian Beale, Negro secretary to Miss Amelia Sears, white, superintendent of the United Charities, went as the guest of her employer to a candy shop and lunch room on Michigan Avenue. They seated themselves and remained for two hours without service. During this time several friends of Miss Sears came in, were served and left, all of them commenting on the apparently deliberate oversight of the party. They remained for some time and left. Suit was brought against the company, supported by Miss Sears and her friends. At the first hearing it was stated that the waitress was ill at a hospital in Cincinnati. The judge, however, was insistent, and she was produced. When placed on the stand she admitted, contrary to the expectations of the management, that she had been ordered by the management not to serve any colored persons at any time. Miss Beale was awarded and collected damages of $100 and costs.

Eight months later, in July, 1921, a test was made of the same restaurant. Two Negro women went together to the restaurant, and a white woman observer went along to watch what might happen. Their reports agree and are as follows:

Time, one o'clock. Restaurant 50 per cent filled. Mrs. L—— and Mrs. S—— came in and seated themselves at a table for two near the center of the room. Waitress followed usual routine of bringing water, taking order, etc. Service of a table d'hôte luncheon was prompt and courteous. No inattention was observed, nor any disturbance on part of neighbors. Two white women came in and seated themselves at the next table, though there were several others vacant.

Two other Negro women and a white observer were sent to another restaurant operating under the same firm name. It was reported by the white observer as follows:

Restaurant two thirds filled—12 o'clock. Mostly women patrons, though a fair number of men alone, and of couples use this restaurant. Mrs. T—— and her friend came in through the long passage by the candy counter, and crossed to a table for two in the middle of the room. The manager, who is a young woman of considerable poise and ability, came at once and gave them water, took their order, and later served them. Two young white women at an adjoining table moved, but it may have been because they were sitting with strangers and preferred a table for two. After finishing my lunch, I joined Mrs. T—— and her friend, and the manager kept us under observation, but nothing was said.

In a subsequent interview with the manager at the general office of this chain of tea rooms cautiously worded replies were made to questions, with constant reiteration of the statement, "But you know we must serve them." In general it was said:

Negro patrons are infrequent, and there has been no noticeable increase. After many cases, complaint is made by white patrons, either in person or by letter, to the effect that if the tea room caters to Negroes, the white patrons will no longer use it. They had never known of a case of objectionable conduct but whites simply objected to their presence.

No instructions were given waitresses, but each case was handled by the head waitress as it occurred. Some girls made no objections to waiting on Negroes, and some refused to do it, but each attitude is individual, and not from instructions. No question that Negro patronage would hurt any high-grade place, as white patrons would be likely to leave. Rights did not enter into the problem—simply a matter of profitable business.

Interviews with managers of tea rooms in department stores brought out uniformity of attitude and of practice, as is shown in the following reports:

The manager of one tea room is a young woman of considerable experience. She was emphatic in saying that Negroes were not wanted, and that every effort would be made to discourage their coming. Considerable personal feeling was manifested in her statements.

Not enough Negroes can afford to pay the prices in high-grade restaurants to make them a real problem, and stray cases are handled as they appear. The effort was made to make them feel uncomfortable so they would not return. Slow service, indifferent attention were given, but there was no overcharging, and no spoiling of food.

Had never observed any objectionable conduct. Objections of white patrons was only reason. Especially difficult in summer, when many southern white people come to Chicago as a summer resort.

Waitresses are largely young married women with spare time. Manager finds them more unwilling than regular waitresses to give service to Negroes.

At another tea room practically the same statements were made, and the following instance was given: "Last winter a telephone reservation was made for a large luncheon party—about forty. When the group arrived, it was a club of colored women. Screens were placed around the tables, and luncheon served. A rule was then made and enforced that no telephone reservations would be made."

Following are reports from investigators seeking to learn at which restaurants, tea rooms, and lunch counters, service would be given to Negroes:

We had been shopping down town, and went into ——'s on State Street to get a light lunch. There were vacant tables and we sat down. No one came to wait on us. After waiting until several persons who had come in after us had been served, I went to one of the men who appeared to be the manager, and asked him why we were not served. He did not respond very cordially, but sent a girl. We ordered several dishes from the card, and were told that they were "just out." Although orders were being served, the girl stated that they were "just out" of everything we ordered. To cover our embarrassment, we practically begged her to serve us cups of chocolate. She gave us the chocolate and our check; we paid it and left.

Mrs. T—— and Mrs. — were served promptly and without incident in a well-known candy store in the shopping district on State Street. Mrs. T—— says that for many years this place has been known for its courtesy to colored people. Soon after it was opened, about World's Fair year, Mrs. ——, a Negro woman, was refused service by a waitress. She reported the fact to the owner, who investigated, and finding her statement correct, discharged the waitress. He made the rule that every patron was entitled to prompt, courteous service, and that discharge would follow any justified complaint. Although the store has been under other management for many years, later adding light luncheons to candy and soft drinks, the tradition has continued. Mrs. T—— says neither waitress nor patrons paid any attention to the serving of two colored women.

This case, involving three races, was reported from one of the Chinese restaurants on South Wabash Avenue:

About 7:00 p.m. we entered a Chinese restaurant. There were three or four white couples eating in the main dining-room, and two in booths. A Japanese waiter ushered us toward the furthest booth at the rear of the room. "I prefer sitting in the main dining-room," I said. He replied, "I can't serve you here." "Why?" "These seats are reserved. I will serve you in there [pointing to the booth] but not out here." We left.

One of the largest chains of cafeterias in Chicago is noted for the fairness of its treatment of Negroes, but even here there are exceptions. One of the Commission's staff observed two incidents within a short time in the same cafeteria of this system and reported them as follows:

Just in line before me was a small, quiet, well-dressed colored woman. She passed the checker, carried her tray to an unoccupied table, and then counted her check. She took her tray back to the checker, and made complaint of overcharge. The checker did not recount, or explain, simply saying, "That is our price." The woman went back to her table, ate, paid, and went out without further protest.

A few nights later, I noticed two young, well-mannered colored girls at a nearby table. As I went out I met the manager and said to him, "Do many Negroes come here to eat?" He said, "No, occasionally they come in, but they don't come back more than once, or at most twice." "How do you manage it?" "Well, under the law, we can't refuse to let them eat, but we can charge them any price we like. The first time we charge them enough to keep them from coming back. Then if they persist and come again, as soon as they go down the line, I see to it that something is put in their food which makes it taste bad—salt or Epsom salts. They never come back after that." After a pause he added, "You know we are within the law. We can't have them coming here—it would ruin our trade."

In the inexpensive restaurants on the edge of the "Loop," various practices are followed, as indicated by the following reports:

Miss B. S. met a friend and went into the —— Cafeteria on Lake Street, near State, upstairs. They were served, but the waiter put screens around their table while they were eating.

In May, 1921, I went to a lunchroom on Van Buren Street to get a lunch at noon. Six or seven men were at the counter, and were served as fast as they came in. Finally all seats were filled and three waiters were doing nothing, so I asked to be served. The waiter pretended not to hear me, then said roughly, "What do you want?" I said, "I do not know until I get a bill of fare." He pitched it at me and I asked for some baked beans. He stuck his head through the chef's window and gave my order. He brought me a plate on which were fourteen beans, and one small roll. I asked for a glass of water and he brought me a half-glass. I asked for butter (which had been served with two rolls to white patrons) and he said it would cost me a nickel. He said with emphasis, "It will cost you a nickel." I said, "You give me the butter, and then watch me and see if I pay for it." I asked for some pie and he gave me a piece about half the size he was serving the others. Then he said again, "Remember that butter will cost you a nickel extra." I said, "I won't pay it." He said, "You will pay for that dinner before you eat a bite of it." I said, "No chance, because I am not going to pay you at all, either before or after I eat. After I have finished I will pay the cashier at the desk." He looked at me hard and I kept on eating. Then he threw me down a check for 25 cents. I said, "Brother, you are wrong. My bill is only 20 cents. Your menu says beans are 15 cents and pie is 5 cents, and you gave me only one roll when to all of the others you served two." He said again, "I told you your butter would cost you a nickel." I said, "Now, you watch me right close when I go out and see if I pay for it." I told the cashier that my check called for 25 cents when it should be 20, "beans 15, pie 5, and if you can make 25 out of that all right." She said, "You know I have to collect what the check calls for, or else make good myself." I told her I appreciated her position but would not pay 25 cents for a 20-cent lunch. Then my waiter stepped up with an iron tap in his hand, and said, "I told you that butter would cost you a nickel, and now you pay it or else——." I said, I will "else," and laid down twenty cents and walked out. At the door he gave me a push but did not strike me.

The white proprietor of a drug-store in a residence neighborhood volunteered this story to a member of the Commission's staff:

Several years ago, there was a fine old colored man who used to come in frequently to buy drugs, supplies, etc. One day he came in with his wife, sat down at one of the little tables, and asked for soda water. My clerk refused to serve them, and the idea occurred to me that I would serve them myself in such a way that there would be no possibility that they would ever come back. I compounded a vile concoction and served it to them. They tasted it, paid for it, thanked me, and went out without making any complaint. I have never got over feeling mean about it. I not only humiliated them, and insulted them, but I cheated them out of their money.

An instance of unusual absence of friction in contacts under conditions which might be expected to produce it was given by a white woman who visited a restaurant patronized by many whites and Negroes:

In talking with Mr. O—— he asked me, "Would you consider it possible that you would voluntarily go into a restaurant and eat your lunch where you might have a Negro sitting on the next stool, or perhaps one on either side of you at a table?" I answered promptly, "No, I can't imagine it." He said, "A year ago I wouldn't have imagined such a thing possible myself, but now I do it quite frequently. There is a restaurant across the street from my office, right here in the heart of the Negro district, which a few years ago was a very good one, with regular table service, excellent food, and all the rest. Last year it was changed into a sort of a cafeteria, with a lunch counter down one side, and some tables. You get your knife and fork, go to the serving counter, and a man gives you on a plate whatever you order. The other day I found myself between two colored men, and took a good look at the restaurant. There is absolutely no disturbance, or even consciousness of any reason for disturbance."

Today I decided I would try it myself. The restaurant has no frills; it is simply an eating-place. I chose a corner seat at a table, because I could see all over the room. As I sat down, a courteous arm reached across the table to shove back the used dishes. I looked up to say "thank you," and found a good-looking young colored man opposite. No further attention was paid to me, nor was there any consciousness in his face, other than courtesy. In a few minutes, two young white truck drivers took the other places at my table. They were in working jeans, and except that the color was blue instead of khaki, looked just like the young soldiers in transport service who used to come into my canteen in France. At the next table was a quietly dressed young colored girl eating her lunch in a business-like way. A young white father brought in his little daughter. At the long lunch counter were neighborhood business men, white and colored, some professional men, each taking whatever stool happened to be vacant. Occasionally a truck driver or roughly dressed working man came in. Even the white dandy, immaculate in linen and with a cane hooked over his arm, took his cup of coffee to the counter and sat between a laborer and a business man.

In theaters, as in restaurants, there are petty evasions of the law, disagreeable encounters, and small but insistent snobberies. A colored investigator reported the result of a test of the purchase of tickets for a play which had had a long run, as follows:

On July 5 I went down to the —— theater and asked the ticket seller if I could get two seats for Thursday or Friday night between the third and ninth rows, center. She hunted out two seats in the ninth row for Thursday. I said, "If you have them I would prefer them for Friday." I asked the price, paid her, and she thanked me.

Friday, I went to the theater, and handed the doorman my tickets. He tore off the coupons, and directed me to the main-floor door. The lady usher seated us three rows from the back on the aisle. I counted and found that I was in the seventeenth row. I went to the usher and said, "I beg your pardon, but you seated me in the wrong place." She took the coupons, said, "Wait a second," and started out with them. I followed to see that she did not exchange my coupons. She went to the lobby and talked with the manager. He looked at me and said, "Well, seat them; there is nothing else to do now." She went back, gave my coupons to another usher, who asked her if I was to be seated in the seats the coupons called for. She answered, "I guess so." Then we were shown to the correct seats. There was no protest from those around us.

The manager of this theater was later interviewed. He had been in Chicago only a few months and was not at all interested in the general question of race relations, but was decided in his opinion that the attendance of Negroes in any high-class theater was not desirable. His views were about as follows:

Not many Negroes buy seats down stairs. Usually the ticket seller gives them tickets in the balcony or gallery and on the side aisles. Usually had complaints from white patrons if they found a Negro seated near them, especially if there were ladies in the party. It was not that the conduct of the Negroes was objectionable, but their mere presence was objectionable. If Negroes present tickets for the best main-floor seats, ushers try to put them in less conspicuous places. If they insist on taking their seats as shown on tickets, nothing can be done. If white patrons object, every effort is made to change their seats. Usual objection is offensive odor and proximity.

In making the study of theaters, certain tests were established. A Negro would ask at the box-office for seats on the main floor within certain rows and on the aisle. In the preceding report it will be noted that seats were sold readily, but some difficulty was found in using them. In the next report, conditions were reversed:

Mr. J——, Negro, asked for tickets, and was told that there was nothing on the main floor further in front than the twenty-third row. Miss H——, white, who was standing by him as he made the request, and heard the answer, moved up to the window and was immediately and without any remark, sold tickets in the seventeenth row on the aisle.

These tickets were presented by Mr. and Mrs. S——, Negroes. They report:

We arrived at 8:15, five minutes before the opening of the performance. The ticket taker tore off our stubs and returned them to us without any hesitancy. The ushers, who were women, glanced at the seat numbers and directed us to our seats, which were in a very conspicuous location on the first floor. They were in the seventeenth row, on the aisle. The people around us, even the ones immediately next to us, were not in the least concerned at our presence. The treatment accorded us in general could not have been surpassed.

A different report comes from another "Loop" theater, which has always been rather conservative in the standard of plays which it presents:

My husband and I wished to see a play at —— Theater, and bought seats several days in advance that we might have a choice. When we were shown to our seats, however, we were surprised to find that our tickets called for seats in the gallery, and in a corner which did not afford a view, and made them more than undesirable. We noticed that there were several vacant seats in the balcony, also on the first floor. My husband went to the box office and tried to exchange the seats. The ticket seller refused to make the exchange and also became insulting in his remarks to us. Afterwards we made the attempt to secure seats on the first floor of this same theater several days in advance of the performance which we wished to attend. We were told there were no seats on the first floor which we could get.

A contrasting experience follows:

On Tuesday I went to the —— Theater, and applied for two tickets on the main floor, center aisle, between the third and eleventh rows. The ticket seller stated politely that he had two tickets in the ninth row on the left. When we attended the performance, nothing unusual occurred. Other patrons made no comment, and in no way could we observe any objection made to our presence. There were no other Negroes at the performance.

Reports of investigators indicate that the managers of movies are convinced that their main floors, at least, should be guarded against Negroes. In most of the commercial amusement places, Negroes seldom have difficulty if they are willing to sit in the balcony, though attempts are frequently made to seat them on the aisles next to the walls, even when there are center seats empty. It is rare that any report is obtained of objections by white patrons to the actual presence of Negroes when they are well-mannered, well-dressed, and appreciative auditors.

As a rule movie theaters do not sell reserved seats, general admission entitling any patron to any seat in the house. But the following detailed report of the experience of two intelligent, well-dressed, quiet-mannered Negro women at a new movie theater on State Street is typical:

Purchased tickets, and entered the large lobby which extends across the front of the house. From this lobby there are closed doors at the entrance of several aisles, so that patrons are directed by ushers to different aisles, supposedly wherever there are vacant seats. We followed directions, and went to the extreme left of the lobby. We opened the door, and the usher in charge of this aisle started down toward the front to show us seats. We saw at once that the narrow section of seats next to the wall was empty except for one colored woman sitting about the middle of the section. Instead of following the usher down the aisle, and taking seats indicated to the right of this section, we turned through a row of empty seats on the left-hand section, and sat next to a woman in the aisle seat. This put us two rows from the rear in a side middle section, instead of in the section which seemed to be reserved for colored patrons, next to the wall. As the usher returned to his station he said, "We have some lovely seats in the balcony; wouldn't you prefer sitting there?" He was courteous, and I thanked him, telling him that we were quite satisfied with the seats we had taken.

Later, seeing two vacant seats further front in the center section which gave us a much better view we decided to take them and see what would happen. As we rose, the usher tried to block us by putting his hands on the back of the seat in front, and saying, "I am sorry that you can't take those seats." I brushed by him and took one of the seats. He tried the same thing with Mrs. H——, and she also brushed by and joined me. There were scattered vacant seats both in the section we left and the one to which we moved. We remained until the end of the show without embarrassment.

The manager of this theater has had many years of experience in Chicago, and was quite willing to discuss race contacts. Nothing in his words would indicate any strong prejudice against Negroes, even when expressing his conviction that they should keep to places intended especially for them. He said, in substance:

Not many Negroes buy tickets—perhaps ten or a dozen a day. An effort is made to seat them in one section of the house, preferably the balcony, to which they are directed by ushers. Reason is the complaint by white patrons who object to sitting next to them for an hour, or hour and a half. Offensive odor reason usually given. White patrons often complain to manager as they go out if Negro has been sitting near them.

Conduct of Negroes is not often objectionable—runs about the same as all patrons. Occasionally one tries to "start something." Recently two Negroes came to manager in crowded lobby after they had attended the show and objected to their seats on the balcony to which they had been sent by ushers, saying there were vacant seats on the main floor. Wanted to know why they were discriminated against. Manager did not want an argument in the presence of other patrons, and told them that as they had seen the show, heard the music, and shared everything with other patrons, he did not see they had any real cause for complaint. Called attention to the notice printed on almost every theater ticket in some form or other to the effect that the management reserves the right to revoke the license granted in the sale of the ticket, by refunding the money paid.

The same two women bought tickets the next day and attended a movie in an older and very popular "Loop" theater. They reported that they had no difficulty of any kind.

On a test made of a new and popular movie theater in an outlying section the investigator reported:

There were four of us in the party on June 5. We were told by the usher that there were no seats on the first floor, and that we would find seats in the first balcony. I think he was right, for there were white people also sent to the balcony. We were ushered in promptly, but another usher met us and said, "Right on up to the second balcony." We said we preferred seats in the first balcony, and walked by him. He went and got two more ushers and stood in front of us to prevent us from going into the first balcony, insisting that there were no seats there. One of the young ladies stepped around the usher, and saw three vacant seats. She called them to the attention of the usher, and he then said he meant there were no seats for four. Two of our party took those seats, and the other two waited about twenty minutes till they could get the seats they wanted. After getting into the first balcony, we saw vacant seats in at least four rows, two, three, and four seats together into which we might quietly have gone had the usher been courteous.

On June 18, 1920, a well-known Negro employed in the City Hall was denied admission to a movie theater at Halsted and Sixty-third streets. There is a small but long-established Negro colony about a mile west of this location.

In business places of various kinds, contacts are determined largely by the kind of service offered. Department-store managers questioned by investigators concerning their Negro patronage and the use of Negro girls as clerks, stated that the public had definite preferences, and probably would not willingly tolerate Negroes either as patrons or as clerks. In stores selling general merchandise, courteous treatment is, as a rule, accorded to Negro patrons, although there are occasional annoying incidents. The attitude then taken is determined by the standing and influence of the Negroes discriminated against. For instance:

At one of the largest department stores, two Negro women, both school teachers, were refused service in the basement shoe department. The clerks refused to fit shoes for them. A Negro alderman became interested in this case, and because of refusal of service, canceled his account.

The wife of a prominent Negro attorney went into a State Street candy store and was flatly refused service. Her husband brought suit and got damages.

Miss V—— was refused service at a large State Street department store by one of the clerks. The manager was interviewed and the clerk reprimanded and transferred. On the second visit, Miss V—— received attention.

In residence areas which are largely white, certain stores practice a peculiar subversion of the law in the effort to regulate contacts. A Negro resident of Woodlawn stated that his seven-year-old daughter had gone to the store to purchase goods for a costume to wear at a school entertainment. She was given material for which she had not asked, which she did not want, and for which she was overcharged. Frightened at the manners of the clerk, she took it. When it was returned, the clerk was extremely abusive, and told her that colored people were not wanted in the store. The little girl had, according to her parents, made a mistake in entering the store. Her parents were acquainted with the attitude of the management and avoided the place. In the following reports, there is evident the sense of injustice felt by both whites and Negroes concerned in the contacts:

Miss S. T—— wrote a prominent musical college and made arrangements for taking the summer normal-training courses. Her tuition fee was accepted, and the classes arranged. On her arrival, the manager received the balance of her money for the entire course, but told her the classes she wanted were full, and she would have to take private lessons with another teacher. The teacher of the desired classes told her the manager had not been frank, and that he feared the objection of southern white girls in the classes. Miss T—— made repeated attempts to get into the classes, but each time was told to apply again. This she did until it was too late to catch up with her back work. Other pupils were given prompt admission to the classes.

Two investigators were instructed to go to a public restroom in a large office building on State Street where there are many small shops selling women's wearing apparel. Their experience follows:

On July 6, at one p.m. with Mrs. H——, I visited the public restroom in the —— building. It is on the eleventh floor, on the main hall, and the door to the suite of rooms stood open. On one side of the entrance hall there is a small room used for a shoe-shining, with a Negro in attendance. Next on the same side is a large lavatory. Facing the outside door is the entrance to the restroom proper, which is large enough for ten or fifteen women, and is fitted up with wicker chairs, lounge, table, etc.

As we were about to enter the restroom, the woman in charge stood with her arm across the door, and said, "You are not to go in there; you may go into the lavatory." We asked why, and she said, "Those are the orders of the office." We went into the restroom, and she did not offer any opposition, but a little later came to us and said, "You are not allowed in here. You will have to see the manager."

I asked the attendant for the manager's name and room number, which she gave me. I related the incident to him. He told me that the attendant had informed me correctly, that the eleventh-floor restroom was reserved for "white folks" and that "colored folks" were not allowed to use it. They could use a restroom on the nineteenth floor set aside for colored employees of the building, and for any "colored folks" who might come into the building. He said it was one of the "iron-clad rules of the man who owned the building," and that "the attendant had it down in black and white."

Difficulties of this sort which confront Negroes and the efforts by Negroes to share equal treatment in public accommodations as well as the experiences met with when cases reach the courts were commented upon by Judge Cook, of the municipal court, in testimony before the Commission. He said:

During the earlier part of 1918 I sat in what was known as the criminal jury branch. That is the branch to which were assigned all criminal cases in the municipal court where the defendants demanded a trial by jury and were not tried at the police station. Among them were cases involving violations of what is known as the civil-rights law, where a colored man had a druggist or the proprietor of a moving picture or legitimate theater arrested for refusing to serve him soda water or refreshments at the drug store or to furnish him admission by ticket at a movie or legitimate theater, or if he did furnish him admission by selling him a ticket, limiting the ticket which he would sell to some undesirable portion of the house or to the gallery and not to the main floor, claiming that the theater was crowded downstairs and that there were no seats.

I suppose I tried during the early part of 1918 and the summer of 1919 probably a half-dozen of those civil-rights cases. In every one of them that I tried, there was virtually a clear case against the defendant. The jury in every instance was practically a white jury, or may have had one or two colored men. Notwithstanding that I gave very positive and clear instructions as to what the law was—to wit, that they were entitled to equal rights and privileges in public places and that if the jury believed from the evidence that the plaintiff was not accorded such right, there was a violation of the law and the defendant should be punished, and after elaborate argument by counsel for both the prosecution and the defendant (and by parenthesis I may say in all of these cases the state's attorney prosecuted vigorously), the jury, notwithstanding the plain evidence and the instructions of the court, went out and in about such time as it would take them to sign the verdict and return to court, would bring in a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Of course in the criminal court in a case of that kind, the jury is the judge of both the law and the fact. Therefore, I was not in a position to grant a new trial. The white jury simply say that law was not the law in Illinois or they would not convict under such circumstances, and having once acquitted the man the court and the state were without any remedy. Now I have always thought that was unjust.

It was his opinion that those Negroes who did bring cases into court made a mistake in prosecuting them from a criminal standpoint. It seemed to be, in his opinion, hopeless for Negroes to assert their rights through the criminal courts.

Another judge of long experience in the Chicago courts expressed the view that few Negroes brought in cases involving discrimination. He thought that especially the better class of Negroes would not bring them because of the unpleasantness involved and because the damages obtained in most cases would not pay the attorney's charges. "Most Negroes," he said, "have found out by experience what the actual feeling is and act accordingly, trying to avoid unpleasant experiences as much as possible. Although there would be no trouble in getting a verdict in any clear case, the amount obtained would not compensate for the trouble involved." He did not believe that any jury would convict a white defendant on a criminal charge of discrimination. A prominent Negro attorney, who formerly held a responsible state office, in giving his general experience said:

In cases involving only Negroes on each side, both judges and juries will act squarely between them; in cases involving white defendants and Negro plaintiffs, the tendency is to give considerably less credibility or weight to Negro testimony; in cases involving Negro defendants and white plaintiffs, the tendency is to give more weight to white testimony.

He stated further that in discrimination cases, where the law had been clearly violated, there was usually no difficulty in getting a verdict and damages for $25 and up, but that he did not care much about handling such cases and Negroes did not care to push them, because they were unpleasant and expensive.

II. "BLACK AND TAN" RESORTS

The intimate association of Negroes and whites in the cabarets of the South Side has occasioned frequent and heated protests. Negro men are there seen with white women and white men with Negro women. Although mixed couples constitute somewhat less than 10 per cent of the patronage, this mingling is used to characterize all of the association there. These resorts, with their liquor selling and coarse and vulgar dancing, are highly dangerous to morals and established law and order, and a nuisance to the neighborhoods in which they are located. They are used as amusement places, both by white couples living in other sections of the city and by Negro couples who live near them. In fact, although many of the resorts are patronized by an equal number of whites and Negroes, the actual mixed couples are few. The habitués of these resorts are usually of an irresponsible type of pleasure seekers, and frequently they are vicious and immoral. Newspapers and several of the civic agencies have violently criticized these places as a menace, but in their attacks the emphasis has usually been shifted from the menace to morals to that of arousing sentiment against the mingling of races. The police on numbers of occasions have been urged to close the places in which this form of association took place. In most cases they have not done so, stating as their reason that, although mingling was undesirable, there was no law prohibiting such contacts, and that evidence of violations of such laws as those concerning liquor selling or decency would be necessary to warrant their closing.

During 1920 the Negro press began a series of attacks on violations of law and against the immoral resorts in the Negro residence areas, including the so-called "black and tan" cabarets, some of which were the most notorious violators. This was followed by similar attacks from the white local newspapers. The emphasis in the white papers, however, was on the race mingling. An extract from one of the articles in a white paper is given:

"Lid" a Joke as Pekin Shimmies Defiance of Law

LIQUOR, SIRENS, JAZZ, RACE RAINBOW RIOT IN CAFÉ

"Lawless liquor," sensuous "shimmy," solicitous sirens, wrangling waiters, all the tints of the racial rainbow, black and tan and white, dancing, drinking, singing, early Sunday morning at the Pekin café, 2700 South State Street....

"BLACK AND TAN AND WHITE"

The crowd began to arrive. In came a mighty black man with two white girls. A scarred white man entered with three girls, two young and painted, the other merely painted.

Two well dressed youths hopped up the stairs with two timid girls. Seven young men—they looked like back o' the Yards—came with two women, one heavy footed, the other laughing hysterically.

Two fur-coated "high yaller" girls romped up with a slender white man. An attorney gazed happily on the party through horn rimmed glasses. The waiters called, shouted, whistled when each party arrived—a full table meant big tips.

At one o'clock the place was crowded. Meanwhile a syncopating colored man had been vamping cotton field blues on the piano. A brown girl sang.... All the tables were filled at two o'clock, black men with white girls, white men with yellow girls, old, young, all filled with the abandon brought about by illicit whisky and liquor music.... The Pekin is again the Pekin of years ago. Only more so.

The reply of a Negro newspaper to the series of articles in the white press on these resorts expresses the reactions of Negroes to this view:

Black and Tans and Race Riots

It is an established conviction that the so-called "intermingling of races" in the cabarets of the South Side is a fruitful source of riots. To those whose minds are bent in this belief, the fact that no riot has ever yet started in one of them is of little importance. Men believe, as a rule, most readily what they earnestly wish to believe. It matters little how absurd the proposition, if it expresses a desire they will make of it an everlasting verity even though it costs them the kingdom of heaven. And so it happens that we are told that the Abyssinians burned a flag and almost precipitated a race riot because they happened be to standing in front of the Entertainers' Café where Negroes and white persons dance on the same floor and occasionally together.

To carry further these deductions the United Cigar Store also should be closed because one of the fanatics shot into it and killed a white man. The connection of both of these places with the incident is just about the same, if not a little worse for the cigar store.

The fury back of complaints like that, for instance, of one Mr. Farwell of the Law and Order League invites suspicion. In all seriousness what is this crime of association for which Mr. Farwell would have these places closed? If demoralization of character is more certain in mixed places or liquor sold more openly can it be urged that race contact is responsible? It cannot. The sore point is the contact. These places are located in the most densely populated Negro neighborhoods. Attendance is voluntary and so is whatever amount of association that follows. There is no manhandling of white innocents to force them into the society of Negroes. Neither do Negroes go snooping around the high lights of the West or North sides seeking white companionship. But that is not the point. When this antipathy is analyzed it becomes apparent that there is a well defined intention to prove that any relationship varying too sharply from the master and servant type is wrong. It is the yelp of tribal jealousy. It is the gaunt denial of a fallacious orthodoxy which proclaims that certain instincts will keep certain persons eternally apart. It is that complex of emotion into which all discussions of race relations resolve themselves.

The resentment of Negroes at the poorly veiled thrusts is perfectly justifiable. However unwholesome to morals these places may be they refuse to join in the chorus of hate against amusement places just because they put no restraints upon their associations. They feel that they are human and at liberty to seek pleasure if they so desire where contacts are mutually agreeable. Those who do not care for this contact will stay away. Because a white woman will dance with a colored man or a white man with a colored woman there is no argument that a riot will follow. Persons who dance together are not so likely to fight as persons who stand at a distance and call each other bad names.

Rationally considered there is no ground for these contentions. They are insulting. If danger is ahead for the city when the Irish and Italians visit the same places of amusement or the Swedes and Lithuanians, then some thought will be given by Negroes to eliminating their dangers. There is no point to calling the patrol because Mr. Farwell and the News think it complicates the race question.

This paper condemned all of these places because they were nuisances to the neighborhood—the blacks, the black and tans and the whites—it did not by this condemnation imply that color affects morals.

III. CULTURAL CONTACTS

Contacts of whites and Negroes in institutions of learning, general cultural agencies, and meetings ordinarily involve no friction and are frequently directly beneficial to race relations. Many Negroes visit and use the public libraries. In fact, instances of objections on the part of the public in this institution appear to be extremely few. In the reading-rooms Negroes sit where they wish, and no objections to their presence are noted. At a branch library on Oakwood Boulevard over 70 per cent of the patronage is of Negroes, and, the director says, very cordial relations exist. The civil-service system has made a number of Negroes eligible for positions in the direct public-service branches of the city government. No apparent difficulties or objections have resulted.

The University of Chicago and Northwestern University have for many years had Negro students. There were in 1921 more than sixty at the University of Chicago, and, although many southern white students attend, there have been no conspicuous difficulties resulting from the associations. On the contrary, certain individual Negroes have been very popular with the student body. During the 1920 football season two Negroes were members of the football squad, and for several years the favorite of the "track" was Binga Dismond, a Negro runner.

There is no Negro member of the City Club or of the Woman's City Club, although the question of admitting Negroes has occasionally been discussed. The Chicago Woman's Club has two Negro members, one for more than fifteen years. Negroes, however, have been welcomed to meetings and in some instances have themselves held meetings there.

A few white churches have several Negro members, usually of long standing. There are instances of white churches accepting particular Negro members, with some apprehension that they might bring friends. The Catholic and Christian Science churches welcome the presence of Negroes at their services. There is no Christian Science church exclusively for Negroes, and several hundred Negroes attend the various services of this church.

Many of the more definitely intellectual agencies like the Chicago Ethical Society, the Chicago Rational Society, and the Sunday Evening Club have regular Negro attendance. At the Chicago Rational Society one of the young hostesses is a Negro.

In these forms of contact it is seldom, if ever, that Negroes are discourteously received. This may be due to the relatively high class of whites and Negroes who share these associations.

IV. CONTACTS IN CO-OPERATIVE EFFORTS FOR RACE BETTERMENT

Most of the important social organizations and agencies of the city which aim definitely at the improvement of the Negro group have mixed boards of control and supervision. The philanthropy, business ability, and influence of white members is combined with the influence of Negro members and their intelligent understanding of their own group problems.

The Young Men's Christian Association, the Young Women's Christian Association, the Chicago Urban League, Community Service, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Inter-racial Committee organized by the Chicago Woman's Club are examples of this form of joint effort. The sentiments of both groups in contact may be discussed and, on the basis of represented group conditions and sentiments, programs are formulated and carried out. This association and exchange of sentiment provide a means of breaking down the isolation between the groups and at the same time offer a means of extending the representative thought of Negroes through their white associates to circles in which contacts are either prohibited or restricted by custom and tradition.

CHAPTER VII
CRIME AND VICIOUS ENVIRONMENT

The crime rate of Negroes is so largely controlled by a tangle of predisposing circumstances that it is hardly possible to isolate and measure its factors. The most important element is the general lawlessness, crime, and vice in the whole population, irrespective of race.