DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Burlington Commission on Human Rights, 1964-1965 | Iowa Law Review, "State Civil Rights Statute: Some Proposals" Page 1074

Transcribe
Translate

Burlington Commission on Human Rights, 1964-1965

Iowa Law Review, "State Civil Rights Statute: Some Proposals" Page 1074

1074   IOWA LAW REVIEW   [Vol. 49

   Almost ninety years before the 1954 United State Supreme Court declaration that segregation in public schools was not permissible in this country,23 the Iowa Supreme Court held that Negroes could not be denied equal access to such Iowa schools.24 Similarly, in the 1873 case of Coger v. North West. Union Packet  Co.,25 this state's highest tribunal held that the provision of the Iowa Constitution stating that "all men are, by nature, free and equal,"26 entitled Negroes to the same rights and privileges in common carriers as whites. In the course of this early opinion, the state supreme court noted:

   In our opinion the plaintiff was entitled to the same rights and privileges while upon defendant's boat, notwithstanding the negro blood, be it more or less, admitted to flow in her veins, which were possessed and exercised by white passengers.
   These rights and privileges rest upon the equality of all before the law, the very foundation principle of our government. If the negro must submit to different treatment, to accommodations inferior to those given to the white man, when transported by public carriers, he is deprived of the benefits of this very principle of equality. His contract with a carrier would not secure him the same privileges and the same rights that a like contract, made with the same  party by his white fellow citizen, would bestow upon the latter. . . It may be claimed that as he does not get accommodations equal to the white man he is not charged as great a price. But this does not modify the injustice and tyranny of the rule contended for. It amounts to a denial of equality. It says to the negro, you may have inferior accommodations at a reduced price, but no others. Who could defend the rule when carried to its legitimate end?27
This long-standing Iowa dedication to equal opportunity for all was emphasized in 18874. In that year, the legislature enacted a provision making it a crime to deny any individual equal access to specified business establishments, "except for reasons by law applicable to all persons." 28 This was one of the earliest state statutes guarantying

_________________

23 Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
24 Clark v. Board Directors, 24 Iowa 266 (1868). "The board of directors may exervcise a uniform discretion equally operative upon all... but the board cannot, in their discretion, or otherwise, deny a youth admission to any particular [public] school because of his or her nationality, religion, color, clothing or the like." Id. at 277. See Dove v. Independent School District, 41 Iowa 689 (1875); Smith v. Directors of the Independent School Dist., 40 Iowa 518 (1875).
25 37 Iowa 145 (1873).
26 Iowa Const. art. 1, § 1. The court also relied on the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the federal civil rights act. For a discussion of this case, see Schaffter, The Iowa "Civil Rights Act," 14 Iowa L. Rev. 63, 66-69 (1928).
27 Conger v. North West. Union Packet Co., 37 Iowa 145, 153-54 (1873). The Supreme Court of Iowa was not, however, wiling to extend this protection of minority groups to other businesses open to the public in absence of a statute. See Bowlin v. Lyon, 67 Iowa 536, 25 N.W. 766 (1885) (operator of skating rink advertised as open to the public could exclude Negroes in absence of any express statute to contrary). 
28 Iowa Code §§ 735.1-.2 (1962).

Saving...

1074 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 49 Almost ninety years before the 1954 United State Supreme Court declaration that segregation in public schools was not permissible in this country,23 the Iowa Supreme Court held that Negroes could not be denied equal access to such Iowa schools.24 Similarly, in the 1873 case of Coger v. North West. Union Packet Co.,25 this state's highest tribunal held that the provision of the Iowa Constitution stating that "all men are, by nature, free and equal,"26 entitled Negroes to the same rights and privileges in common carriers as whites. In the course of this early opinion, the state supreme court noted: In our opinion the plaintiff was entitled to the same rights and privileges while upon defendant's boat, notwithstanding the negro blood, be it more or less, admitted to flow in her veins, which were possessed and exercised by white passengers. These rights and privileges rest upon the equality of all before the law, the very foundation principle of our government. If the negro must submit to different treatment, to accommodations inferior to those given to the white man, when transported by public carriers, he is deprived of the benefits of this very principle of equality. His contract with a carrier would not secure him the same privileges and the same rights that a like contract, made with the same party by his white fellow citizen, would bestow upon the latter. . . It may be claimed that as he does not get accommodations equal to the white man he is not charged as great a price. But this does not modify the injustice and tyranny of the rule contended for. It amounts to a denial of equality. It says to the negro, you may have inferior accommodations at a reduced price, but no others. Who could defend the rule when carried to its legitimate end?27 This long-standing Iowa dedication to equal opportunity for all was emphasized in 18874. In that year, the legislature enacted a provision making it a crime to deny any individual equal access to specified business establishments, "except for reasons by law applicable to all persons." 28 This was one of the earliest state statutes guarantying _________________ 23 Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 24 Clark v. Board Directors, 24 Iowa 266 (1868). "The board of directors may exervcise a uniform discretion equally operative upon all... but the board cannot, in their discretion, or otherwise, deny a youth admission to any particular [public] school because of his or her nationality, religion, color, clothing or the like." Id. at 277. See Dove v. Independent School District, 41 Iowa 689 (1875); Smith v. Directors of the Independent School Dist., 40 Iowa 518 (1875). 25 37 Iowa 145 (1873). 26 Iowa Const. art. 1, § 1. The court also relied on the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the federal civil rights act. For a discussion of this case, see Schaffter, The Iowa "Civil Rights Act," 14 Iowa L. Rev. 63, 66-69 (1928). 27 Conger v. North West. Union Packet Co., 37 Iowa 145, 153-54 (1873). The Supreme Court of Iowa was not, however, wiling to extend this protection of minority groups to other businesses open to the public in absence of a statute. See Bowlin v. Lyon, 67 Iowa 536, 25 N.W. 766 (1885) (operator of skating rink advertised as open to the public could exclude Negroes in absence of any express statute to contrary). 28 Iowa Code §§ 735.1-.2 (1962).