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.