Segregation in Interstate Travel

    ‘PRESS RELEASE® @ 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
107 WEST 43 STREET + NEW YORK 36, N. Y. 

ARTHUR B. SPINGARN ose 
President 

WALTER WHITE 
Secretary 

ALLAN KNIGHT CHALMERS 
Treasurer 

FOR RELEASE: JULY 14, 1955, 10:00 a.m. 

SEGREGATION IN INTERSTATE TRAVEL 

JUdson 6-8397 

THURGOOD MARSHALL 
Director and Counsel 

ROBERT L. CARTER 
Assistant Counsel 

ARNOLD De MILLE 
Press Relations 

July 11, 1955 

WASHINGTON, D.C.--Argument on the question of racial segregation 

in interstate travel is scheduled to come up before the Interstate 

Commerce Commission on July 14, 1955, in the Interstate Commerce Build- 

ing in Washington, D. C, 

This argument is regarded as the most important and significant on 

the issue of segregation since the reargument in the school segregation 

cases before the Supreme Court, December 7-9, 1953. It is a frontal 

attack on segregation in railroad coaches, waiting room facilities and 

eating places in railroad terminals brought by lawyers for NAACP Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund in behalf of the NAACP and 21 persons. 

Robert L, Carter, first assistant counsel of Legal Defense and assistant 

special counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of 

Colored People, will argue for the Negroes, The complaint was filed by 

Thurgood Marshall, Legal Defense director-counsel and Mr, Carter, 

The question involved is whether railroads and railroad terminals 

which segregate and discriminate arainst a person because of race vio- 

late the Interstate Commerce Act, 

Argument will be centered around a report proposed by ICC Examiner 

Howard Hosmer who has recommended that the Commission "fina" that the 

practices of segregation in railroad coaches and waiting room facili- 

ties "subject Negro passengers to unreasonable disadvantage in violation 

of Section 3(1) of the Interestate Commerce Act," 

Examiner Hosmer's report is the result of a complaint filed with 

the ICC on December 1), 1953 against eleven railroads, the Richmond 

(Va.) Terminal Railway Company end the Union News Company, operator of 

the eating facilities at the Broad Street Station in the Richmond Term- 

inal. The complaint was filed by the National Association for the 

Advancement of Colored People end the 21 individuals who charge the de- 

fendants with segregation and discrimination in interstate travel, 

Examiner Hosmer's proposed report called for the end of Jim Crow 

in interstate travel and made public on November 17, 1954. It brought 



® @ 
-2- 

sharp replies in the form of written exceptions from the eleven rail- 

roads and the Richmond Terminal Railway Company. The exceptions were 

filed with the ICC on January 17, 1955. 

NAACP Legal Defense attorneys also filed their exceptions on 

January 17, and a reply to the railroads! exceptions was filed with the 

ICC on February 5, 1955. 

The attorneys for the NAACP and the 21 individuals took issue with 

Examiner Hosmer's conclusion that the ICC does not have jurisdiction 

over the eating facilities operated by the Union News Company at the 

Richmond Terminal Company's union station and that the ICC does not 

have the power to order the end of segregation there, 

NAACP attorneys argued in their exceptions that prior decisions 

establish the fact that Congress intended to confer on the ICC juris- 

diction to prohibit discrimination of every kind in interstate commerce, 

including eating facilities maintained on the property of an interstate 

carrier, The Richmond Terminal Company, having a duty not to discrimi- 

nate, may not avoid this duty merely by leasing its premises to the 

Union News Company, the attorneys assert. Moreover, they stated that 

the Commission has jurisdiction to enforce an order prohibiting discrim- 

ination against the Union News Company as well as the Richmond Terminal 

Company. 

The Richmond Terminal Company, along with four railroads maintain 

in separate exceptions, that the segregation charges against them have 

not been sufficiently proved by the Negro complainants. Even if the 

charges were proved, they contend, their segregation policy and practices 

do not violate the Interstate Commerce Act. The 4 railroads which main- 

tain this position are: the Texas and Pacific R.R. Co., the Missouri- 

Pacific R.R. Co., the Seaboard Airline R.R, Co., and the Illinois Central 

R.R, Co. 

The Richmond Terminal owners argue further that while they do have 

waiting room signs designating "Colored" and "White", there is no proof 

that segregation is practiced at the Broad Street Unton Station, No one 

is compelled to pay attention to the signs, they say. The signs are only 

for the convenience of travelers of either race to accommodate their de- 

sire to associate primarily with members of their own race, 

The other 7 railroads had entered into stipulations admitting that 

they maintain "separate but equal" facilities for Negro and white. 



me ® ® 
5. Tae 

passengers in their coaches, However, these railroads argue that they 

were not violating the law because Congress, in enacting the Inter- 

state Commerce Act, did not intend to outlaw segregation per se in 

interstate commerce, 

These companies cited several decisions handed down by the courts 

and the Commission which, they allege, hold that segregation by inter- 

state carriers is not a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act, 

The railroads maintaining this view are: The Atlantic Coast Line 

R.R. Co,, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., the Gulf Mobile 

and Ohio R,R, Co., the Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. (this railroad 

though originally a stipulation railroad who filed separate brief say- 

ing facts against it were not proven), the Louisville and Nashville 

RR. Co., the St, Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., and the Southern Ry. 

Co. 

All 11 railroads and the Richmond Terminal Company reject the 

applicability of the Supreme Court May 17, 195), decision in the school 

segregation cases which denounced as outdated the Plessy v. Ferguson 

"separate but equal" doctrine, They maintain that the cases were "not 

decided upon a consideration of legal principles but on subjective 

intangibles, and modernistic psychological and sociological theories 

and opinions," 

While the Supreme Court may decide a case upon these grounds, the 

railroads further contend, the ICC has no authority to make any such 

decision. 

Legal Defense lawyers Thurgood Marshall and Robert L. Carter say 

that Examiner Hosmer's recomnendation asking the Commission to order 

these defendants to cease their practice of segregation is well 

grounded in law and reason and "should be adopted." 

The defendants! exceptions "failed to shake the fundamental 

validity of the examiner's reasoning and conclusions concerning the 

power of the Commission to bar racial segregation in railroad coaches 

and in railroad stations," Legal Defense attorneys say. Their argu- 

ment that the ICC's power and authority are limited only to the 

"separate but equal’ doctrine is "a somewhat startling conception" of 

the Commission's powers. 

There is "no warrant" either in the "language or legislative his-+ 

tory" of the Interstate Commerce Act for "construing" Section 3, Arti- 

cle 1, as limited to only that kind of racial discrimination, Marshall 
and Carter say. 



ele 

"If we look to the language of the Act . . . the defendants! 

argument necessarily fail. Indeed, from the language it is so clear 

that all kinds of discrimination are prohibited that no further in- 

quiry is necessary to support the holding that the separation of 

Negro and white passengers in the use and enjoyment of interstate 

transportation facilities is included in that discrimination which the 

Interstate Commerce Act was intended to abolish," they say, 

The lawyers claim that the pertinent language in Section 3, 

Article 1, which forms the basis for the Commissioner's authority to 

bar racial discrimination of any kind is "undue or unreasonable pref- 

erence or advantage" as against "undue or unreasonable prejudice or 

disadvantage in any respect whatsoever," 

Not only is "separate but equal" not mentioned in the Interstate 

Commerce Act, but discrimination is barred in "sweeping" and "all- 

inclusive terms," 

"The Courts have found this language unambiguous, and, as we 

pointed out heretofore in our exceptions, this language has been inter- 

preted as a broad barrier against discrimination of any kind whatso-~ 

ever," the two NAACP Legal Defense attorneys argue. 

Attempts by the defendants to defend their policy of segregation 

on the theory that separate waiting rooms, rest rooms, and eating 

facilities is what Negro passengers prefer is "sheer nonsense." If 

there is one thing with which students of American culture are in 

agreement, it is the fact that segregation in public transportation is 

"bitterly resented" by Negroes and is considered a "badge" of infer- 

jority, they continue, 

"Segregation does not provide equality for anybody, On the con- 

trary, it results in the imposition of indiscriminate discrimination 

against both Negro and white passengers," 

The lawyers for the National Association for the Advancement of 

Colored People and the 21 individual complainants ask that the Com- 

mission adopt Examiner Hosmer's report barring segregation in railway 

coaches and waiting rooms and that it order the Union News to cease 

their policy of segregation and discrimination in railway station 

restaurants immediately. 



& * 
5 

BACKGROUND. -- The original complaint against the 11 railroads, the 

Richmond Terminal Company and the Union News was filed 

with the Interstate Commerce Commission on December 21, 1953 asking 

that the ICC order the defendants to put an end to their policies, 

rules, regulations or practices which segregate, discriminate or make 

any distinction among passengers based upon race or color, The ICC 

was also asked to make the requested order a rule or regulation which 

will bind all interstate carriers, corporations or individuals, oper- 

ating facilities affecting interstate travel, subject to its jurisdic- 

tion. 

The complaints against the railroads, the Richmond Terminal and 

the Union News are regarded as basic. Discriminatory rules or regula- 

tions are enforced generally by virtually all railroads transporting 

passengers throughout the Southern States, The complaints of Negro 

citizens who travel through this section of the country are too nume- 

rous to be cited in any single complaint and those listed in the com- 

plaint are merely examples of the treatments to which they are subjected, 

The aim of the complaint against the thirteen defendants is to end the 

policy of segregating Negro and white passengers in interstate travel. 

The 11 railroads involved are: St, Louis-San Francisco Railroad 

Co., Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co., Southern Railroad Cosy 

The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Co,, Texas and Pacific Rail- 

road Co,, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., Missouri Pacific Railroad 

Co., Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co,, Kansas City Southern Line Railroad 

Co,, Illinois Central Railroad Co., and Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co. 

Those filing the complaint are: (1) The National Association for 

the Advancement of Colored People (a membership corporation of approx= 

imately 300,000 members with 1,400 branches in 5 of the 8 states, 

with headquarters at 20 West Oth Street, New York City, and subsidiary 

offices in Washington, D, C.; Birmingham, Ala.; Dallas, Texas; Cincin- 

nati, Ohio, and San Francisco, Calif, Its primary purpose and concern 

is the elimination of segregation and discrimination from all segments 

of American life so that Negro minorities may enjoy full and complete 

citizenship rights within the United States, its territories and pos- 

sessions as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of 

America, ) 



In attending its annual meetings and conventions held in different 

cities each year, NAACP members, officers and employees have been sub- 

jected to discriminatory treatment, segregation and other forms of 

humiliation and embarrassment while traveling because of their race and 

color by railroads, terminals and companies operating eating establish- 

ments in railroad stations and other terminals in the states where 

racial segregation is required by law, 

(2) RUBY HURLEY bought a ticket May 14, 1953, in Armory, Miss. 

for Birmingham, Ala, on the St, Louis-San Francisco line, She was 

forced to ride in a segregated car which had a movable curtain marked 

"Colored" on one side and "White" on the other. 

(3) HATTIE BALLARD on December 17, 1952, bought two round-trip 

tickets on the Seaboard Air Line's "Silver Comet", a crack reserved- 

seat streamliner, On December 27, on her return to New York, she 

tried to occupy the seats her reservation called for, but the train 

conductor refused to let her enter the car because it was already occu- 

pied by whites. She and her companion had to stand until they could 

find other seats in a car reserved exclusively for Negroes. 

(4) WENDELL FERCUSON, en route from Los Angeles to Dallas, Texas, 

on the Santa Fe, December 15-16, 1951, rode in the Dallas car along 

with other passengers, Negro and white, until the train reached Clovis, 

New Mexico, At that point, he and all other Negro passengers were re- 

quired to move to a segregated coach for the remainder of the journey. 

(5) EUGENE GORDON bought a round-trip ticket on June , 1953 for 

a journey between New York and Florence, S, C. on the Atlantic Coast 

Line, He made the trip on the “Miamian" on June . without being sub- 

jected to any type of segregation, but on his return trip to New York 

on the "West Coast Champion" he was put into a jammed packed car next 

to the engine reserved exclusively for Negroes, Some of the men had 

to ride in the men's room in order to allow women with children to sit. 

There were many available seats in other cars, After complaints were 

made to the conductor, he somewhat later allowed Negro women with 

children to sit in other sections of the train, 

(6) CLARENCE MORGAN, travelling from Birmingham, Ala, to New York 

on the Southern Railroad's "The Southerner", purchased a reserved coach 

seat and was denied his rightful seat and forced to ride in a different 

car reserved exclusively for Negro passengers. 



(7) CHARLIZ MAE HAYES, on January 6, 1953, bought a round-trip 

ticket from Hot Springs, Ark, to Nashville, Tenn, on the Missouri 

Pacific Line, The conductor directed her to a segregated coach but 

she refused and occupied a seat in another car, The conductor in abu- 

sive language then ordered her out of this coach explaining that it 

was for white passengers. 

(8) (a) ELIOTT J, BEAL, July 1, 1953, boarded the "Southern 

Belle" of the Kansas City Southern Lines, operating between Kansas City 

and New Orlea ns for a trip to Alexandria, La, He, along with all 

other Negro passengers, was required to ride in a coach which was di- 

vided by a curtain separating white and Negro passengers. 

(b) On Beal's return to New Orleans from Alexandria July 2, 

1953, he boarded a Texas and Pacific train operating between El Paso 

and New Orleans, and was directed to a coach which was divided by a 

curtain separating white and Negro passengers. 

(c) July 9, 1953, Beal boarded the "Rebel" of the Gulf, 

Mobile and Ohio Line on a trip from New Orleans to Jackson, Miss, He 

was forced to rice in a coach reserved exclusively for Negroes, At 

West Columbus, Miss, the coach was sidetracked and he and all other 

Negro passengers were moved to the rear of another coach previously 

occupied by white passengers who had been moved elsewhere in order to 

make room for the Negroes, 

(a) On returning to New Orleans from Jackson, Miss. July 10, 

on the Illinois Central's "City of New Orleans" Beal was directed to a 

coach set aside exclusively for Negroes. On the station platform in 

Jackson there was a sign painted in large letters, "Colored Passengers 

Board Here." 

(9) ELVIRA CRAIG journeyed from Atlanta, Ga. to New York on the 

Southern Railroad line December 29, 1952, She bought her ticket in 

Atlanta from a representative or employee of the railroad and was as- 

signed to a seat in a coach which was reserved exclusively for Negroes. 

When she boarded the train and entered the car, she realized that she 

was entering a segregated car, She immediately left the car and sought 

to secure a seat in another part of the train but was prevented from 

doing so by the conductor who abused her, Therefore, she was compelled 

to make the entire trip in a dirty, overcrowded segregated car, 



-8- 

(10) A, S. CRISHON and 

(11) WARREN STETZEL, an interracial couple en route to NAACP 

meeting in Jacksonville, Fla. to protest the killing of Harry Moore, 

were traveling from Mobile, Ala. to Jacksonville, Fla, on the Louis- 

ville and Nashville line January 16, 1952. At Mobile they boarded the 

New Orleans to Jacksonville coach which the Louisville and Nashville 

operated for its through passengers. When the train left Flomaton, 

Ala, the conductor forced Crishon, the Negro, to leave the coach and 

go to a car set aside exclusively for Negroes. Stetzel attempted to 

follow Crishon but was forced to remain in the car because he was white. 

(12) GELENE PAYTE and 

(13) ETHEL I, BERRY bought tickets for passage from Mobile to 

Washington, D. C, on December 21, 1951, on the Louisville and Nashville 

line, At Mobile they, along with a large number of other Negroes, were 

not permitted to board the train because there were no coach accommoda-= 

tions for Negro passengers. White passengers, however, were permitted 

to board the train. There were plenty of empty seats left throughout 

the train. 

On December 22, 1951, Miss Berry made her trip to Washington 

aboard the "Crescent Limited" of the Southern Railroad Company and was 

forced to ride in a segregated car, 

(14) RUSSELL L. ANDERSON, JR. boarded the "South Wind" of the 

Louisville and Nashville Railroad at Thomasville, Ga. on January 3, 

1953, for a trip to Chicago, Although he was required to pay extra 

fare for riding on a reserved-seat train, he was forced to ride ina 

car reserved exclusively for Negroes. This car was so overcrowded that 

he was not able to secure a seat until he reached Montgomery, Ala. 

(15) GEORGE JOHNSON purchased a ticket on June 1, 1953, for pas- 

sage from Cincinnati, Ohio to Russellville, Ky, on the "Hummingbird" 

of the Louisville and Nashville line. On boarding the train in Cincin- 

nati, he and all other Negro passengers were directed to a single car 

while white passengers were allowed to use whatever cars they pleased. 

Johnson rode in a segregated car to Bowling Green, Ky. where he was 

required to change trains. While waiting for his connecting train he 

was obliged to sit in a waiting room set aside for Negro passengers in 

the Bowling Green station. On boarding the connecting train to continue 

his trip to Russellville, he was again directed to a segregated coach. 



=Ja 

(16) JAMES G. BAPTISTE, on July 17, 1953, was traveling on passes 

issued by the Pennsylvania Railroad, Richmond-Frederick and Potomac 

Railroad, Florida Railroad and the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad. He was 

en route from Palm Beach, Fla. to New York. On July 17, 1953, he 

attempted to secure pullman space on the "Havana Special" at Florence, 

S.C, The pass issued by the Atlantic Coast Line was marked "Colored" 

and "Not good in pullman and parlor cars." The passes issued by the 

other lines were not so designated. The agent at Florence sold 

Baptiste space from Richmond to New York, but told him he could not 

sell him space from Florence to Richmond in view of the restrictions 

stamped on his pass by the Atlantic Coast Line. On the train pullman 

space was available and he tried to secure one from the conductor. 

White passengers traveling under similar conditions were permitted to 

buy such space, Baptiste was refused and had to ride in a segregated 

coach until the train reached Richmond, 

(17) JA GREEN and 

(18) DOROTHY M. SCOTT GREEN purchased tickets on July 2, 1953, 

at Richmond, Va. for passage to Washington, D. C., for the purpose of 

getting married, They planned to leave Richmond at 5:20 p.m. and ar-~ 

rive at the Broad Street Station, operated by the Richmond Terminal 

Company, at approximately 4:30 p.m. Restaurant facilities reserved for 

Negroes were filthy and since they were holders of tickets for inter- 

state travel, they decided to sit at an empty table in the restaurant 

maintained for white persons, Both facilities were operated by the 

Union News Company. 

Upon giving their orders to one of the waitresses, they were 

told they could not be served in the dining room, but would have to go 

to the one reserved for colored passengers, They then asked for the 

manager and were told he would not be back until 6 otclock. They, 

therefore, were forced to leave without being served, White persons, 

regardless of whether they were holders of tickets of local or inter- 

state travel, were served as a matter of course, 

(19) REV. A. L. JAMES en route from Petersburg, Va. to Philadcl- 

phia, Pa, on January lh, 195i, was refused service in the dining room 

operated by the Union News Company in the Broad Street Station, Richmad, 

Va. Rev. James sought to eat in the dining room during a lay over be- 

tween connections and was refused solely because of his race. 



-10— 

(20) JOHN L. LeFLORE en route to Mobile, Ala. from St, Louis, Mo. 

boarded a train operated by the Gulf, Mobile and Ohio R.. At North 

Cairo, Ill., he was ordered to move to a seat in a coach set apart for 

Negro passengers, There were no unoccupied seats in the segregated 

coach, and he had to purchase Pullman accommodations in order to get a 

seat. 

(21) Tf. E. McKINNEY, JR., on September 13, 1953, purchased a tic- 

ket for a trip from Charlotte, N, C., to Brunswick Maine, on the 

Southern Railway. When he boarded the train, all the seats in the 

segregated coach were talken and he was informed that he would have to 

stand until the train reached Salisbury, N. C. He noticed that several 

of the coaches occupied by white passengers were not filled and he took 

a seat in one of them, He was ordered to move from this coach and, 

when he refused, the conductor ordered the train to the station, sum= 

moned police assistance and had Mr. McKinney ejected from the train, 

EXAMINER HOWARD HOSMER'S REPORT: -- After nothing that seven of the de- 

fendants had entered into stipula- 

tions admitting that they maintained segregated facilities, the 

Examiner found that sufficient proof was adduced against the non-stip-= 

ulating defendants to establish that they pursued a policy of segrega- 

tion in coach facilities in interstate commerce. 

Tracing the history of the "separate but equal" principle in liti- 

gation before the ICC, the Examiner noted that there has been a change 

in public sentiment concerning passenger segregation. Taking note of 

the finding of the Supreme Court in the school segregation cases that 

the policy of segregation is usually interpreted as denoting the infer- 

iority of the Negro group, the Examiner ruled that enforcement of such 

a policy by railroads created an "unreasonable disadvantage" in viola- 

tion of Section 3(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act. The Examiner 

noted that prior decisions of the Commission upholding segregation were 

based on the propositions that such a holding was necessary to preserve 

"peace and order." Experience with desegregation has shown that the 

danger to "peace and order" is negligible and should no longer be the 

governing criterion, the Examiner stated. Thus, he recommended that 

the Commission hold that the practices of segregation in coaches and 

waiting rooms subject Negro passengers to unreasonable disadvantage in 

violation of Section 3(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act. 



exes 

COURT DECISIONS DIRECTLY AFFECTING INTERSTATE TRAVEL: 

Mitchell v. United States--The U. S. Supreme Court held, in 1940, that 

the Interstate Commerce Act required rail- 

roads in interstate traffic to afford to Negroes an equal opportunity 

to purchase and occupy available first-class space in train travel. 

Morgan v. Virginia--The U, S. Supreme Court ruled in this case in 

1946, that a state segregation statute as applied 

to passenger travel from state to state in buses was "a burden on 

interstate commerce" and therefore unconstitutional. 

Matthewsv. Southern Railroad--The U. S, Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia, in 196, ruled 

that a state segregation statute could not be enforced on passengers 

in trains while traveling from state to state, 

Whiteside vs Southern Bus Lines--The U. S. Court of Appeals for the 

6th Circuit, in 1949, held that the 

ruling in the Morgan v. Virginia also applied to carriers! discrimi- 

natory regulations as well as to state statutes, 

Henderson v, United Statcs--The U. S. Supreme Cours, on June 5, 1950, 

in effect, held that a passenger in inter- 

state travel could not be segregated in din CAPS. 

=30=