Cabe v. Atchison, Topeka Sante Fe Railway Company
Decision Date | 30 November 1914 |
Docket Number | No. 15,15 |
Citation | 35 S.Ct. 69,59 L.Ed. 169,235 U.S. 151 |
Parties | E. P. McCABE, J. T. Jeter, John W. Capers, and S. G. Garrett, Appts., v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA, & SANTE FE RAILWAY COMPANY, the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, the Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Railway Company, the Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railway Company, and the Fort Smith & Western Railroad Company |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. William Harrison, Edwin O. Tyler, and Ethelbert T. Barbour for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 152-156 intentionally omitted] Messrs. S. T. Bledsoe, J. R. Cottingham, C. O. Blake, Clifford L. Jackson, R. A. Kleinschmidt, C. E. Warner, and Mr. Charles West, Attorney General of Oklahoma, for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 156-158 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the court:
The legislature of the state of Oklahoma passed an act approved December 18, 1907 (Okla. Comp. Laws, 1910, §§ 860 et seq.), known as the 'separate coach law.' It provided that 'every railway company . . . doing business in this state, as a common carrier of passengers for hire,' should 'provide separate coaches or compartments, for the accommodation of the white and negro races, which separate coaches or cars' should 'be equal in all points of comfort and convenience' (§ 1); that at passenger depots there should be maintained 'separate waiting rooms,' likewise with equal facilities (§ 2); that the term 'negro,' as used in the act, should include every person of African descent, as defined by the state Constitution (§ 3); and that each compartment of a railway coach 'divided by good and substantial wooden partition, with a door therein, should be deemed a separate coach' within the meaning of the statute (§ 4).
It was further provided that nothing contained in the act should be construed to prevent railway companies 'from hauling sleeping cars, dining or chair cars attached to their trains, to be used exclusively by either white or negro passengers, separately but not jointly' (§ 7).
Other sections prescribed penalties both for carriers and for passengers failing to observe the law (§§ 5, 6). The act was to take effect sixty days after its approval (§ 12).
On February 15, 1908, just before the time when the statute, by its terms, was to become effective, five negro citizens of the state of Oklahoma (four of whom are appellants here) brought this suit in equity against the Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Company, the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, the Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Railway Company, the Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railway Company, and the Fort Smith & Western Railroad Company, to restrain these companies from making any distinction in service on account of race. On February 26, 1908,—after the act had been in operation for a few days,—an amended bill was filed seeking specifically to enjoin compliance with the provisions of the statute for the reasons that it was repugnant (a) to the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, (b) to the enabling act under which the state of Oklahoma was admitted to the Union (act of June 16, 1906, chap. 3335, § 3, 34 Stat. at L. 267, 269), and (c) to the 14th Amendment. The railroad companies severally demurred to the amended bill, asserting that it failed to state a case entitling the complainants to relief in equity. The circuit court sustained the demurrers, and, as the complainants elected to stand upon their bill, final decree dismissing the bill was entered. This decree was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals (109 C. C. A. 110, 186 Fed. 966), and the present appeal has been brought.
The conclusions of the court below, as stated in its opinion, were, in substance:
1. That, under the enabling act, the state of Oklahoma was admitted to the Union 'on an equal footing with the original states,' and, with respect to the matter in question, had authority to enact such laws, not in conflict with the Federal Constitution, as other states could enact; citing, Permoli v. New Orleans, 3 How. 589, 609, 11 L. ed. 739, 748; Escanaba & L. M. Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678, 688, 27 L. ed. 442, 446, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 185; Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 125 U. S. 1, 31 L. ed. 629, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 811; Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U. S. 504, 41 L. ed. 244, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1076; Bolln v. Nebraska, 176 U. S. 83, 44 L. ed. 382, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287. See also Coyle v. Smith, 221 U. S. 559, 573, 55 L. ed. 853, 860, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 688.
2. That it had been decided by this court, so that the question could no longer be considered an open one, that it was not an infraction of the 14th Amendment for a state to require separate, but equal, accommodations for the two races. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 41 L. ed. 256, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1138.
3. That the provision of § 7, above quoted, relating to sleeping cars, dining cars, and chair cars, did not offend against the 14th Amendment, as these cars were, comparatively speaking, luxuries, and that it was competent for the legislature to take into consideration the limited demand for such accommodations by the one race, as compared with the demand on the part of the other.
4. That, in determining the validity of the statute, the doctrine that an act although 'fair on its face' might be so unequally and oppressively administered by the public authorities as to amount to an unconstitutional discrimination by the state itself (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 373, 30 L. ed. 220, 227, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064) was not applicable, as there was no basis in the present case for holding that any discriminations by carriers which were unauthorized by the statute were practised under state authority.
5. That the act, in the absence of a different construction by the state court, must be construed as applying to transportation exclusively intrastate, and hence did not contravene the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. Louisville, N. O. & T. R. Co. v. Mississippi, 133 U. S. 587, 590, 33 L. ed. 784, 785, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 801, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 348; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Kentucky, 179 U. S. 388, 391, 45 L. ed. 244, 246, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 101; Chiles v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. 218 U. S. 71, 54 L. ed. 936, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 667, 20 Ann. Cas. 980.
6. That with respect to the existence of discriminations the allegations of the bill were too vague and uncertain to entitle the complainants to a decree.
In view of the decisions of this court above cited, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the first, second, fourth, and fifth of these conclusions.
With the third, relating to § 7 of the statute, we are unable to agree. It is not questioned that the meaning of this clause is that the carriers may provide sleeping cars, dining cars, and chair cars exclusively for white persons, and provide no similar accommodations for negroes. The reasoning is that there may not be enough persons of African descent seeking these accommodations to warrant the outlay in providing them. Thus, the attorney general of the state, in the brief filed by him in support of the law, urges that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mulkey v. Reitman
...and assisted in discrimination. (See also Baldwin v. Morgan, 5 Cir., 287 F.2d 750.) Similarly, as early as 1914, in McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry., 235 U.S. 151, it was stated at page 162, 35 S.Ct. 69, at page 71, 59 L.Ed. 169 that the denial of equal railroad facilities to Negroes by a ......
-
State ex rel. Forman v. Wheatley
... ... v. Wright, 225 U.S. 540; So ... Railway Co. v. King, 217 U.S. 525; McKay v. Railway ... 51 ... The ... Bi-Metallic Company v. State Board of Equalization case is ... the ... ...
-
Moose Lodge No 107 v. Irvis 8212 75
...1627, 18 L.Ed.2d 830 (1967); Robinson v. Florida, 378 U.S. 153, 84 S.Ct. 1693, 12 L.Ed.2d 771 (1964); McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 235 U.S. 151, 35 S.Ct. 69, 59 L.Ed. 169 (1914). I therefore dissent and would affirm the final decree entered by the District Court. 1. Our recent opini......
-
Darby v. Daniel, Civ. A. 2748.
...must stand or fall on the merits of their own case. The Supreme Court stated the principle in McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 1914, 235 U.S. 151, 162, 35 S.Ct. 69, 71, 59 L.Ed. 169, in these "But we are dealing here with the case of the complainants, and nothing is shown to entitle t......
-
Transnational class actions and interjurisdictional preclusion.
...("[Would-be class representatives] cannot represent a class of whom they are not a part." (citing McCabe v. Atchison, T.S.F.R. Co., 235 U.S. 151, 162-63 (42) 18A WRIGHT, MILLER & COOPER, supra note 14, [section] 4455, at 459; see supra note 33 (regarding RESTATEMENT (SECOND) Or JUDGMENT......
-
Public Opinion and the Demise of Affirmative Action
...soil without the right to purchase or own it. They were excluded from many occupations of gain . . . . Id. [54]. In McCabe v. Atchison, 235 U.S. 151 (1914), the Court upheld a statute that sanctioned racial discrimination in railroad accommodations. In Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1 (1......
-
Speak to Your Dead, Write for Your Dead: David Galloway, Malinda Brandon, and a Story of American Reconstruction
...for the Supreme Court to finally unwind in Brown the moral obscenity that was Plessy . See McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914); Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938); Sipuel v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Okla., 332 U.S. 631 (1948); Sweatt......
-
Timothy Schwarz, Cases Time Forgot: Why Judges Can Sometimes Ignore Controlling Precedent
...Overall View, in LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, supra note 217, at 22. 219 McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151, 160-61 (1914). However, the case was dismissed because the statutory scheme had not yet gone into operation, effectively leaving the plaintiff......