Page images
PDF
EPUB

TITLE II-PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS

Another signpost of freedom must be extended to the Negro if he is to overcome racial inequality and if our country is to live up to its national ideals. This is the opportunity for every individual, regardless of the color of his skin, to have access to places of public accommodations. This right is so distinctive in its nature that its denial constitutes a shocking refutation of a free society.

The impact of this inequity is not confined to our citizens and our shores. Many representatives of foreign governments have experienced at first hand this condition. Secretary of State Rusk, in testifying before a Senate Commerce Subcommittee, described the case of an ambassador of an African country, who, when taking a trip, was confronted with a canceled hotel reservation because of his color. Several other ambassadors and lesser diplomatic officials have been denied service at restaurants while traveling about the country. Beaches, swimming pools, theaters, and similar places of accommodation and amusement have similarly been closed to foreign officials.

This form of discourtesy, if not hostility, has not been confined to diplomatic personnel. Students, representatives of private organizations, and other guests to this country have been equally insulted. Our Nation is engaged today in cold war combat with an alien ideology. On every front-military, economic, political, and social— we must demonstrate the worth of our system. To do this, we need every ally we can obtain. Therefore, when representatives of other nations meet enmity and rejection from operators of public establishments on our soil, they carry away feelings of enmity and rejection themselves. There is little doubt that American citizens would react the same way if confronted in like manner in a foreign land. The result of this cannot but undermine our foreign policy.

We do not intend, however, to rest the need for public accommodations legislation on foreign policy. As stated earlier, the badge of citizenship extended to Negro as well as white by the 14th amendment-demands that establishments that do public business for private profit not discriminate on grounds of race, color, national origin, or religion.

An official of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, testified before the Senate Commerce Subcommittee as follows:

For millions of Americans this is vacation time. Swarms of families load their automobiles and trek across country. I invite the members of this committee to imagine themselves darker in color and to plan an auto trip from Norfolk, Va., to the gulf coast of Mississippi, say, to Biloxi. Or one from Terre Haute, Ind., to Charleston, S.C., or from Jacksonville, Fla., to Tyler, Tex.

How far do you drive each day? Where and under what conditions can you and your family eat? Where can they use a rest room? Can you stop driving after a reasonable day behind the wheel or must you drive until you reach a city where relatives or friends will accommodate you and yours for the night? Will your children be denied a soft drink or an ice cream cone because they are not white?

In response to Senator Pastore's question as to what the Negro must do, there was the reply:

Where you travel through what we might call hostile territory you take your chances. You drive and you drive and you drive. You don't stop where there is a vacancy sign out at a motel at 4 o'clock in the afternoon and rest yourself; you keep on driving until the next city or the next town where you know somebody or they know somebody who knows somebody who can take care of you. This is the way you plan it.

Some of them don't go.

Daily we permit citizens of our Nation to be humiliated and subjected to hardship and abuse solely because of their color.

Equally unendurable is the knowledge that this treatment is not limited to travelers. Inhabitants in local communities-citizens who are long-time residents, taxpayers, leaders in their locales-are similarly denied access to restaurants, hotels, gasoline stations, theaters, and similar establishments. Their money is gladly taken at the supermarket, variety shop, or department store. But, to buy a meal, cold drink, or a bit of entertainment and the cold hand of rejection stares them in the face.

On moral grounds, and from the standpoint of upholding human dignity, the U.S. Congress cannot tolerate such practices. In many other areas of life, Congress has enacted legislation on social and moral grounds. Kidnaping, child labor, prostitution, gambling, abuse of migrant labor, slave labor, adulterated food and drugs, mislabeling, and many other unacceptable activities have been legally proscribed by Congress. There is ample authority and equal justification for action here.

Similarly, Congress has the constitutional right to eliminate segregation or discrimination in places of public accommodation under the 14th amendment.

Section 201(d) precludes racial discrimination or segregation among the same categories of business as those covered by the commerce clause. Thus, hotels, motels, restaurants, gasoline stations, department stores (operating a lunch counter), and similar establishments may not deny service to Negroes if such denial is carried on under color of State or local law, or if a State or political subdivision requires, fosters or encourages discrimination or segregation. In addition, every form of public accommodation, covered through section 201 or not, is prohibited under section 202 from discrimination or segregation if denial of services is required by State or local law.

Pursuant to the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment, the Supreme Court has definitely established that a State may not legally require the segregation of places of public accommodation (Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U.S. 244 (1963)). Moreover, where a State makes segregation a public policy (Lombard v. State of Louisiana, 373 U.S. 267 (1963)); or where it seeks to utilize the police authority to uphold segregated laws or policies (Wright v. State of Georgia, 373 U.S. 284 (1963), Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157 (1961)), Congress has authority and an obligation to proscribe such activities.

It is argued that the enactment of title II invades rights of privacy and of free association. In respect of the right of privacy, it seems ludicrous to pursue this form of argument since the types of establishment involved in title II are those regularly held open to the public in general. The fact that 32 States have also enacted public accommodations laws-frequently broader in context than this, and pursuing the reasoning of the old common law principle that inns and way stations were open to all, there seems little support for the "right of privacy" argument.

Turning to the "freedom of association" contention, there is little basis for urging this principle in behalf of owners of business who regularly serve the public in general. This "freedom" can only be claimed by the party of interest-the owner, not the customer; and the owner of a public establishment, as above mentioned, is hardly in a position to raise it. Moreover, where freedom of association might logically come into play as in cases of private organizations, title, II quite properly exempts bona fide private clubs and other establishments. Finally, it must be said that even if freedom of association is considered to be affected to some degree by the application of title II, there is no question that the courts will uphold the principle that the right to be free from racial discrimination outweighs the interest to associate freely where those making the claim of free association have knowingly and for profit opened their doors to the public.

If we consider the matter solely in commercial and economic terms, we can also substantiate the need for title II. As was so aptly stated, "Some of them don't go." The strain of traveling long distances without respite, the nagging uncertainty of locating a decent place to eat or sleep, or the fear of finding oneself on a lonely road at night with car trouble and no place to turn for assistance has forced innumerable families and individuals to stay at home. The following table presented to the Senate Commerce Subcommittee by officials of the Commerce Department reveals the distances between certain selected cities that a Negro must travel to find a reasonably acceptable place of lodging:

TABLE I.-Illustrative trip, Washington, D.C., to Miami, Fla., and Washington, D.C., to New Orleans, La., showing location of hotel-motel accommodations of "reasonable" quality readily available to Negroes

[blocks in formation]

The effect of these distances of "no-man's" land that must be crossed before a sanctuary can be found is ample evidence that travel among persons of dark skin is sizably reduced. In a related manner, testimony was presented before the House Judiciary Subcommittee by an official of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, that Negro truckdrivers are not sent on overnight trips in certain areas of the country because of a lack of rest accommodations. Likewise, even though regulations of Government prescribe otherwise, many Negroes are subjected to or fear discrimination in railroad, bus, and airlines terminals-thereby reducing interstate travel. Without question, these denials have an immediate and measurable effect on curtailing interstate commerce.

Turning to another example of impediment upon interstate commerce, the Commerce Department presented statistical evidence of the imbalance between Negroes and whites (within the same income classes) in expenditures for admissions to recreational facilities, food eaten away from home, and automobile operations. This imbalance exists to a limited extent throughout the country, but it is significant that the greatest disparity occurs in those areas where places of public accommodation are widely segregated:

TABLE II. Average family expenditure for admissions, food eaten away from home, and automobile operations, for 3 income classes, large northern and southern cities, by race, 1950

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Source: "Study of Consumer Expenditure Income and Saving," tabulated by Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, for Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa., 1956-57.

« PreviousContinue »