Race Distinctions in American Law

by Gilbert Thomas Stephenson

NOTES

[517]. Century Dictionary, I, p. 546.

[518]. Ibid., IV, p. 3233.

[519]. Laws of Fla., 1865, p. 24.

[520]. Laws of Miss., 1865, pp. 231–32.

[521]. Laws of Texas, 1866, p. 97.

[522]. Laws of Ga., 1870, pp. 427–28.

[523]. Laws of Texas, 1871, 2d sess., p. 16.

[524]. Acts of La., 1873, pp. 156–57.

[525]. Acts of Ark., 1873, pp. 15–19.

[526]. Acts and Resolves of Mass., 1866–67, p. 242.

[527]. Laws of Pa., 1867, pp. 38–39.

[528]. Laws of Del., 1875–77, p. 322.

[529]. Derry v. Lowry, 1865, 6 Phila. Rep. 30.

[530]. West Chester and Phila. Ry. Co. v. Mills, 1867, 55 Pa. S. 209.

[531]. Pleasant v. N. B. & M. Ry. Co., 1868, 34 Calif. 586.

[532]. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 1870, 55 Ill. 185.

[533]. Coger v. N. W. Union Packet Co., 1873, 37 Ia. 145.

[534]. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 1873, 17 Wall, 445.

[535]. Acts of La., 1869, p. 37.

[536]. 95 U. S. 485, at p. 489 (1875).

[537]. U. S. v. Dodge, 1877, Fed. Case No. 14,976.

[538]. Pub. Laws of N. C., 1899, pp. 539–40.

[539]. Acts of Va., 1899–1900, p. 340.

[540]. Ibid., extra sess., 1901, pp. 329–30.

[541]. Acts of S. C., 1904, pp. 438–39.

[542]. Green v. “City of Bridgeton,” 1879, Fed. Case No. 5,754.

[543]. “The Sue,” 1885, 22 Fed. 843.

[544]. Laws of Tenn., 1881, pp. 211–12.

[545]. Laws of Fla., 1887, p. 116.

[546]. Laws of Miss., 1888, pp. 45 and 48.

[547]. Laws of Texas, 1889, pp. 132–33; 1891, pp. 44–45 and 165.

[548]. Acts of La., 1890, pp. 152–54; 1894, pp. 133–34.

[549]. Acts of Ala., 1890–91, pp. 412–13.

[550]. Acts of Ky., 1891–92–93, pp. 63–64.

[551]. Acts of Ark., 1891, pp. 15–17; 1893, pp. 200–01.

[552]. Laws of Ga., 1891, I, pp. 157–58; 1899, pp. 66–67.

[553]. Acts of S. C., 1898, pp. 777–78; 1903, p. 84; 1906, p. 76.

[554]. Pub. Laws of N. C., 1899, pp. 539–40; 1907, pp. 1238–39; 1909, p. 1256.

[555]. Acts of Va., 1899–1900, pp. 236–37.

[556]. Laws of Md., 1904, pp. 186–87.

[557]. Laws of Okla., 1907–08, pp. 201–04.

[558]. L. N. O. & T. Ry. Co. v. State, 1889, 6 S. 203; Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896, 163 U. S. 537; O. Val. Ry. Rec. v. Lander, 1898, 47 S. W. 344; C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Com. of Ky., 1899, 51 S. W. 160.

[559]. L. N. O. & T. Ry. Co. v. State, 1889, 6 S. 203.

[560]. Anderson v. L. & N. Ry. Co., 1894, 62 Fed. 46.

[561]. O. Val. Ry. Rec. v. Lander, 1898, 47 S. W. 344.

[562]. Smith v. State, 1898, 46 S. W. 566.

[563]. Chiles v. C. & O. Ry., 1907, 101 S. W. 386.

[564]. Pullman-Palace Car Co. v. Cain, 1897, 40 S. W. 220.

[565]. Smith v. Chamberlain, 1893, 17 S. E. 391.

[566]. C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Com. of Ky., 1905, 84 S. W. 566.

[567]. L. & N. Ry. Co. v. Catron, 1897, 43 S. W. 443.

[568]. West Chester and Phila. Ry. Co. v. Mills, 1867, 52 Pa. S. 209; U. S. v. Dodge, 1877, Fed. Case No. 14,976; Murphy v. W. & A. Ry. Co., 1885, 23 Fed. 637; Logwood v. M. & C. Ry. Co., 1885, 23 Fed. 318; Houck v. S. Pac. Ry. Co., 1888, 38 Fed. 226; Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896, 163 U. S. 537.

[569]. Logwood v. M. & C. Ry. Co., 1885, 23 Fed. 318.

[570]. Norwood v. G. H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 1896, 34 S. W. 180.

[571]. L. & N. Ry. Co. v. Com. of Ky., 1896, 37 S. W. 79.

[572]. Raleigh, N. C., News and Observer, March 12, 1907.

[573]. Laws of Ga., 1891, I, pp. 157–58.

[574]. Acts of La., 1902, pp. 89–90.

[575]. Laws of Miss., 1904, pp. 140–41.

[576]. Acts of Tenn., 1905, pp. 321–22.

[577]. Laws of Fla., 1905, pp. 99–100.

[578]. Acts of Va., 1906, pp. 92–94.

[579]. Pub. Laws of N. C., 1907, pp. 1238–39.

[580]. Laws of Okla., 1907–08, pp. 201–04.

[581]. Acts of Ark., 1903, pp. 178–79.

[582]. Acts of Va., 1901, extra sess., pp. 212–13; 1901–02, pp. 639–40.

[583]. Acts of Tenn., 1903, p. 75.

[584]. Laws of S. C., 1905, p. 954.

[585]. Raleigh, N. C., News and Observer, Nov. 23, 1906.

[586]. Walden v. Vicksburg Ry. and Light Co., 1906, 40 S. 751.

[587]. State v. Patterson, 1905, 39 S. 398, at p. 400.

[588]. Pub. Laws of N. C., 1909, p. 1256.

CHAPTER X
NEGRO IN COURT ROOM

The Negro goes into a court room in one or more of six capacities, namely: as spectator, witness, juror, party to a suit, attorney, or judge. It is in each of these capacities that the Negro in the court room is to be considered, but some of them permit of only brief mention. How the Negro actually fares in the court room—whether he gets justice as often as the white person does, whether his testimony has as much weight with the jury and court as that of the white witness, whether the Negro attorney or judge is accorded as much courtesy as the white man in a similar position—would make an interesting and profitable study, but such a study is largely outside the field of this investigation. It should be kept in mind now, as in the previous chapters, that only those distinctions are considered which have come within the pale of the law since 1865, either in the form of statutory enactment or judicial decision. Where mention is made of some of the actual extralegal race distinctions in the court room, it is only for illustration.