xt7msb3wtd0h_54 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2.dao.xml unknown 166 Cubic Feet 381 document boxes, seven textile items, three map folders, one artwork archival material 72m2 English University of Kentucky The physical rights to the materials in this collection are held by the University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center. Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Frederick Moore Vinson papers Economic stabilization. Elections -- United States -- Congresses. Judges -- Correspondence. Judges -- United States. Judicial opinions Judicial process -- United States Legislators -- Correspondence. New Deal, 1933-1939. World War, 1914-1918 -- Veterans. World War, 1939-1945. Henderson v. USA - no. 25 text Henderson v. USA - no. 25 2019 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2/Box_209/Folder_11/Multipage6337.pdf 1949 1949 1949 section false xt7msb3wtd0h_54 xt7msb3wtd0h .5113.,:(qm1131¥wémxw§§ FA..3§4.§§?P&N€ )lnt.iuﬁvaﬂ¢¥uu L z . ., . ,. ‘iiliﬂnmqnnrﬂwﬂriu .i.

“13%!

1‘ a

it Barb

- c we

ﬁer39

a : PP. "an

.—

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STAQJEESSEM m“ '.I

‘CHJE.

No. 25.—OCTOBER TERM, 1949.

Elmer \V. Henderson,
Appellant,

o On Appeal From the

T . 1 . f X 3 United States District
The Lnitec States 0 ; merica, Court, for the District

Interstate Commerce Com—
mission, and Southern Rail-
way Company.

of Maryland.

[June 5. 1950.]

MR. Jt‘s'riCE BURTON delivered the opinion of the
Court.

The question here is whether the rules and practices
of the Southern Railway Company, which d'vide each
dining car so as to allot ten tables exclusively to white

passengers and one table exclusively to Negro passengers,
and which call for a curtain or partition between that table
and the others. violate ,3 3 (1) of the Interstate Commerce
Act. That section makes it unlawful for a railroad in
interstate commerce “to subject any particular person,

to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disa l—
vantage in any respect whatsoever: . . . .” 54 Stat.
902, 49 U S. C. § 3 (1). We hold that those rules and
practices do violate the Act.

This issue grows out of an incident which occurred
May 17, 19-12. On that date the appellant, Elmer WV.
Henderson. a Negro passenger, was traveling on a ﬁrst—
class ticket on the Southern Railway from Washington,
D. C.. to Atlanta. Georgia. en route to Birmingham. Ala-
bama, in the course of his duties as an employee of the
United States. The train left Washington at 2 p. in. At
about 5:30 p. 111.. while the train was in Virginia} the ﬁrst
call to dinner was announced and he went promptly to the

1N0 reliance is placed in this ca>e upon any action by any state,

fat"*tt

«:1 l !

25
2 HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES.

dining car. In accordance with the practice then in
effect, the two end tables nearest the kitchen were condi—
tionally reserved for Negroes. At. each meal those tables
were to be reserved initially for Negroes and, when oc—
cupied by Negroes, curtains were to be drawn between
them and the rest of the car. If the other tables were
occupied before any Negro passengers presented them—
selves at the diner then those two tables also were to be
available for white passengers, and Negroes were not to be
seated at them while in use by white passengers.2 When
the appellant. reached the diner, the end tables in ques—
tion were partly occupied by white passengers but at

2 Rule of the Southern Railway Company issued .luly 3, 1941, and
in effect May 17, 1042:

“DININH can REGULATIONS

“Meals should be served to passengers of ditl‘erent races: at separate
times. 11" passengers of one race desire meals while passengers of
a ditl'erent race are being served in the dining car, such meals will
be served in the room or seat occupied by the passenger without
extra charge. It the dining car is equipped with curtains so that
it can be divided into separate compartments, meals may be served
to passengers of dili'erent races at the same time in the compartment
set aside t'or them." 258 1. C. C. 413, 41:3, (33 F. Supp. 900, 010.

Joint Circular of the Southern Railway System issued August 6,
1942:

“ljll'eetive at once please be governed by the following with respect,
to the race separation curtains in dining ears:

" let'ore starting each meal pull the curtains to service position
and place a ”’teserved‘ card on each of the two tables behind the
curtains.

"These tables are not to be used by white passengers until all other
seats in the car have been taken. Then il‘ no colored passengers pres-
ent themselves for mealsy the curtain should be pushed back, cards
removed and white passengers served at those tables.

"After the tables are oeeupitd by white passengers, then should
colored passengers present themselves they should be advised that
they will be served just as soon as those compartments are vacated.

" ‘lteserved‘ cards are being supplied you" 2581.C.C.at p. 415,
133} l“. Supp. at p. 010.

HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES. 3

least one seat at them was unoccupied. The dining-car
steward declined to seat the appellant in the dining car
but offered to serve him, without additional charge, at
his Pullman seat. The appellant declined that offer and
the steward agreed to send him word when space was
available. No word was sent and the appellant was not
served, although he twice returned to the diner before
it was detached at 9 p. m.

In October, 1942. the appellant ﬁled a complaint- with
the Interstate Commerce Commission alleging especially
that. the foregoing conduct violated § 3 (1) of the Inter—
state Commerce Act.“ Division 2 of the Commission
found that he had been subjected to undue and un—
reasonable prejudice and disadvantage, but that. the
occurrence was a casual incident brought about, by the
bad judgment of an employee. The Commission de-
clined to enter an order as to future practices. 258

I. C. C. 413. A three—judge United States District
Court for the District of Maryland, however, held that

““(l) It sltall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the
provisions of this part to nzalxc. glee, or cause any undue or unreason—
able preference or rulrantagc [a any partlcula‘r person. company, firm,
corporation, association, loealit)‘, port, port district, gateway, transit
point, region, district, territory, or any particular description of trallic,
in, any respect ll‘lMIlSOt‘l‘t'l',‘ or to subject any particular person,
company, firm, corporation, association, locality, port, port district,
gateway, transit point, region, district, territory, or any particular
description of trallic to any un/lue or unreasonable prejudice or (lisad—
uantaqe in any respect u'ltaz‘socz'er.‘ . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.)
5-1Stat.fltJ2,4tt L'. s. C. §:-; ('1‘).

The appellant sought an order directing the railroad not only
to cease and desist from the speciﬁc Violations alleged but also to
establish in the future, for the complainant and other Negro inter-
state passengers, equal and just dining—car facilities and such other
service and facilities as the Commission might consider reasonable and
just, and requiring the railroad to discontinue using curtains around
tables, reservtd for Negroes.

The appellant sought damages, but the Commission found no
pecuniary damages and that issue has not been pressed further.

_E)
4 HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES.

the railroads general practice. as evidenced by its instruc-
tions of August 6, 1942, was in violation of .5 3 (1). Ac-
cordingly, on February 18. 1946, it remanded the ease
for further proceedings. 63 F. Supp. 906. Effective
March 1. 1946. the company announced its modiﬁed rules
which are now in effect. They provide for the reservation
of ten tables. of four seats each. exclusively and uncon—
ditionally for white passengers and one table, of four
seats, exclusively and unconditionally for Negro passen—
gers. Between this table and the others a curtain is
drawn during each meal}

‘»"TRANSI’ORTATION DEPARTMENT CIRCI‘I..\I~I NO. 142.
CANCELLING INSTRUCTIONS (IN THIS SI'IIJECT, DATED
JULY :3, 1041, AND AI‘GUST (3, 194-2.

“SUBJECT: SEGIIEGATION (7)17 WIIITE AND COLORED PAS—
SENGEIIS IN DINING CARS.

“To: Passenger Conductors and Dining Car Stewards.

"Consistent with experience in respect to the ratio between the
ntnnber of white and colored passengers who ordinarily apply for
service in available diner space, equal but separate accommodations
shall be provided for white and colored passengers by partitioningr
diners and the allotment of space, in accordance with the rules, as
follows:

“(1) That one of the two tables at Station No. 1 located to the
left side of the aisle facing the bullet, seating four persons, shall be
reserved exclusively for colored passengers, and the other tables in
the diner shall be reserved exclusively for white passengers.

"(2) Before starting each meal, draw the partition curtain sep—
arating the table in Station No. 1, described above, from the table
on that side of the aisle in Station No. 2, the curtain to remain so
drawn for the duration of the meal.

" (3) A 'I’ieserved' card shall be kept in place on the left—hand table
in Station No. 1, described above, at all times during the meal except
when such table is occupied as provided in these rules.

“(-1) These rules become effective March I, 1946.

”II. K. McClain,
“Assistant Vice—President."
209 I. C. C. 73, 75, SO F. Supp. 3?, 35‘

Counsel for the railway company, at a subsequent hearing, corrected
the above rules “to the extent of using the word ‘negroes' in place

.—

HENDERSON 1‘. UNITED STATES. o

On remand. the full Commission, vith two members
dissenting and one not participating. found that the
modiﬁed rules do not violate the Interstate Commerce
Act and that no order for the future is necessary." 269
I. C. C. 73. The appellant promptly instituted the
present proceeding before the District Court, constituted
of the same three members as before, seeking to have the
Commission’s order set aside and a cease and desist order
issued. 2Q U. S. C. §§ 41 (28). 43—48; 49 U. S. C. § 17
(0); see also. 28 If. S. C. (Supp. III) §§ 1336. 1398. 2284,
2321, 2325. With one member dissenting. the court sus—
tained the modiﬁed rules on the ground that the accom—
modations are adequate to serve the average number of
Negro passengers and are “proportionately fair.” 80 F.
Supp. 32. 30. The case is here on direct appeal. 28
U. S. C. (Supp. III) §§ 1253, 2101 (b). In this Court, the

of ‘colored persons.‘ ” Also, the evidence shows, and the Commission
has stated, that “White and Negro soldiers are served together, with—
out distinction." 2:38 I. C. C. 413, JI15. The rules, accordingly, are
treated as applicable only to civilian passengers. The company
further showed that it is now substituting a live—loot high wooden
partition in place of the curtain. The steward’s ofﬁce is being placed
in the table space opposite that reserved for Negro passengers and
a similar wooden partition is being erected between that oll'icc and
the rest of the car.

'7 The company was permitted to introduce two tabulations, cover-
ing about ten days each, showing the coml'uirative numbers of meals
served to white and Negro passengers on trips comparable to the
one which the appellant had taken. These show that only about
45; of the total meals served were served to Negro p "sengers whereas
four reserved seats exceed 0% of a total seating capacity of 44. On
the other hand, the tabulations also show that at one meal 17 Negro
passengers, and at each of 20 meals more than eight Negro passengers,
were served. Similarly, the brief ﬁled by the Commission states that,
out of the 6239 serving periods reported, on 15 occasions more, than
four times as many white p~ " targets were served as there were seats
reserved for them, and, 011 5-11 occasions, there were two or more
rounds of servings.

6 HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES.

United States ﬁled a brief and argued orally in support-
of the appellant.

It is clear that appellant has standing to bring these
proceedings. He is an aggrieved party, free to travel
again on the Southern Railway. Having been subjected
to practices of the railroad which the Commission and
the court below found to violate the Interstate Commerce
Act, he may challenge the railroads current regulations
on the ground that they permit the recurrence of com—
parable violations. Mitcltell v. United States, 313 U. S.
80. 92v03.

The material language in § 3 (1) of the Interstate Com—
merce Act has been in that statute since its adoption in
1887. 24 Stat. 380. From the beginning, the Interstate
Commerce Commission has recognized the application of
that language to discriminations between white and Negro
passengers. Councill V. Western ((7 Atlantic R. Co, 1
I. C. C. 330; “7 Heard v. Georgia 1?. Co, 1 I. C. C. 428;
Heard v. Georgia 1?. Co, 3 I. C. C. 111; Edwards v. Nash—
ville, C. (Q' St. L. 1?. Co, 12 I. C. C. 247; Cozarl‘ v. Southern
11’. Co, 16 I. C. C. 226; Gaines v. Seaboard iiirLluc 1?. Co,
16 I. C. C. 471; Crosby v. St. Louis—San Francisco R. Co,
112 I. C. C. 239. That section recently was so applied
in Mile/tell v. United Slates, supra.

The decision of this case is largely controlled by that
in the Mitchell case. There a Negro passenger holding
a ﬁrst-class ticket was denied a Pullman seat, although
such a seat was unoccupied and would have been avail—
able to him if he had been white. The railroad rules

“"The \Vestern and Atlantic llailroad Crnnpany will be notiﬁed
to cease and desist from subjecting colored persons to undue and
unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage in violation of section 3:}
of the Act to regulate commerce, and from t'urnishing to colored per-
sons purchasing ﬁrst—class tickets on its road acconuuodations which
are not equally sale and comfortable with those furnished other ﬁrst-
class passengers," lI. C. C. at p. 317.

25
HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES. 7

had allotted a limited amount of Pullman space. con-
sisting of compartments and drawing rooms, to Negro
passengers and, because that, space was occupied, the
complainant was excluded from the Pullman car and
required to ride in a second-class coach. This Court held
that the passenger thereby had been subjected to an
unreasonable disadvantage in violation of §3 (1).T

The similarity between that, case and this is ines—
capable. The appellant here was denied a seat in the
dining car although at least one seat was vacant and
would have been available to him, under the existing
rules, if he had been white.‘ The issue before us, as in
the ﬁlitc/zcll case. is whether the railroads current rules
and practices cause passengers to be subjected to undue or
unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in violation of § 3
(1). We find that they do.

The right to be free from unreasonable discriininations
belongs under § 3 (1), to each particular person. “here
a dining car is available to passengers holding tickets
entitling them to use it. each such passenger is equally
entitled to its facilities in accordance with reasonable
regulations. The denial of (lining service to any such
passenger by the rules before us subjects him to a pro-
hibited disadvantage. T'nder the rules, only four Negro
passengers may be served at one time and then only at,
the table reserved for Negroes. Other Negroes who pre—
sent themselves are compelled to await a vacancy at that
table, although there may be many vacancies elsewhere
in the diner. The railroad thus refuses to extend to
those passengers the use of its existing and unoccupied

7The rules dirt.) denied access by Negroes, to the (lining car and
observation car. The principles there announced applied equally to
those facilities.

SThnt specitic denial of service was condemned by the Commis-
sion and the District Court as a violation of §3 (l). levicw of
that condemnation is not sought, here.

25
8 HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES.

facilities. The rules impose a like deprivation upon
white passengers whenever more than 40 of them seek
to be served at the same time and the table reserved for
Negroes is vacant.

We need not multiply instances in 'hich these rules
sanction unreasonable discriminations. ‘The division be—
tween the tables is at. most symbolic} The curtains,
partitions and signs emphasize the artiﬁciality of ailivi—
siorilvwhich serves only to call attention to a racial classi—
ﬁcation of passengers holding identical tickets and using
‘ the same public dining facility. Cf. ilchaurz'n v. Olfa-
lmma. State Regents, ante, p. ——, decided today. They
violate § 3 (l).

Our attention has been directed to noming which
removes these racial allocations from the statutory con—
demnation of “undue or unreasonable prejudice or dis—
advantage . . . .” It is argued that the limited demand

for dining-car facilities by Negro passengers justifies the
regulations. But it is no answer to the particular pas-
senger who is denied service at an unoccupied place in
a dining ear that. on the average. persons like him are
served. As was pointed out in JIz'lc/tell v. United States,
313 U. S. 80, 97. “the comparative volume of trafﬁc cannot.
justify the denial of a fundamental right of equality of
treatment. a right speciﬁcally safeguarded by the provi-
sions of the Interstate Commerce Act.” Cf. JIcCabe V.
Ale/risen, T. d‘ S. F. R. Co, 235 U S. 151; Missouri at
rel. Gaines V. Canada. 305 1'. S. 337.

That the regulations may impose on white passengers,
in proportion to their numbers, disadvantages similar to
those imposed on Negro passengers is not. an answer
to the requirements of §3 (1). Discriminations that
operate to the disadvantage of two groups are not the
less to be condemned because their impact is broader
than if only one were affected. xC'f. Shelley V. Kraemcr,
334 U. s. 1. 22. A ~

n...

LII)
HENDERSON L‘. UNITED STATES. 9

Since §3 (:1) of the Interstate Commerce Act invali—
dates the rules and practices before us. we do not reach
the constitutional or other issues suggested. 5"”

The judgment of the District Court is reversed and
the cause is remanded to that court with directions to
set aside the order of the Interstate Commerce Com—
mission Which dismissed the original complaint and to
remand the case to that Commission for further pro—
ceedings in conformity with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Mn. Jr's'riCIi CLARK took no part in the consideration
or decision of this case.

rI'-~,‘~- A
U] I \,-’A,‘«

Recirculat 7 "‘ ' _

‘})ti’(‘t
to the race separation curtains in diningr cars:

“lit-tore starting each meal pull the curtains to service position
and place a ‘lieservtd' card on each of the two tables behind the
curtains.

"These tables are not to be used by white passengers until all other
seats in the ear have been taken, then, it' no colored passengers present
themselves for meals, the curtain should be pushed back, cards re-
moved and white tn 'sena‘ers served at those tables.

"Atter the tables are occupied by white passengers then should
colored passengers present themselves they should be advised that
they will be served just as soon as those compartments are vacated.

“ 'Jieserved' cards are beingr supplied you.”

HENDERSON v. UNITED STATES. 3

but offered to serve him, without additional charge. at
his Pullman seat. The appellant declined that offer and
the steward agreed to send him word when space was
available. No word was sent and he was not served,
although he twice returned to the diner before it was
detached at 9 p. m.

In October, 1942. the appellant ﬁled a complaint with
the Interstate Commerce Commission alleging especially
that the foregoing conduct violated §3 (1) of the Inter—
state Commerce Act." Division 2 of the Commission
found that he had been subjected to undue and un—
reasonable prejudice and disadvantage. but that the
occurrence was a casual incident brought about by the
bad judgment of an employee. The Commission de—
clined to enter an order as to future practices. 258
.l. C. C. 413. A three-judge United States District
Court for the, District of Maryland, however. held that

the railroads general practice, as evidenced by its instruc—

"""t I) If slut/f be lelfflll'fr’ff for (1111/ common carrier subject to the
provisions of this part to nut/(c. give, or cause (my toil/He or unreason-
able [11'1'fei'e/1cc or ((1/1‘(II/f(I(/(’ to (1111/ particular person. company, firm,
corporatitni, association, locality, port, port district, gateway, transit
point, region, district, territory, or any particular description of traliic,
m (1115/ respect tc/ozfsocz'cz'; or to subject (1111/ particular person,
cotnpany, firm, corporation, association, locality, port, port district,
gateway, transit point, region, district, territory, or any particular
description of traflic to (1111/ undue or unreasonable prejudice or dismi-
'I'Hllfllt/t‘ [11 (1111/ respect 11'/1r1!soere1'.‘ . . . ."
31 Stat. no; .1‘.1 t'. s. (1 §:-; (11.

The appellant sought an order directing the railroad not only
to cease and desist from the specific Violations alleged but also to

(Emphasis supplied.)

establish in the future, for the complainant and other Negro inter—
state passengers, equal and just dining-car facilities and such other
service and facilities as the Connnission might consider reasonable and
just, and requiring the railroad to discontinue using curtains around
tables rcscrvml for Negroes.

The appellant soquht damages, bill the Commission found no
pecuniary damages and that issue has not been pressed further.

25
4 HENDERSON L‘. ['NITED STATES.

tions of August. 6. 1942, was in violation of § 3 ('1). Ac—
cordingly, on February 18, 1946, it remanded the case
for further proceedings. 63 F. Supp. 906. Effective
hiarch 1. 1946. the company announced its modiﬁed rules
which are now in effect. They provide for the reservation
of ten tables. of four seats each. exclusively and uncon-
ditionally for white passengers and one table. of four
seats. exclusively and unconditionally for Negro passen—
gers. Between this table and the others a curtain is
drawn during each meal.“

‘* “Stu“rrticnx RAILWAY Svs'rizir
"Office of Assistant Vice—lh‘esident
"\Vashing‘ton, D. C., February 1.”, 10413.
“'l‘ransportation Department Circular No. HE. Cancelling instruc—

tions on this subject, dated July 3, lit—ll, and August ti, 1042.
“St'BJicor: Segregation of White and Colored l’assengers in Diningr

Cars.

"To: l’assenc‘er Conductors and Dining Car Stewards.

“Consistent with experience in respect to the ratio between the
number of white and colored 1')asscnefers who ordinarily apply for
service in available diner space, equal but separate accommodations
shall be provided for white and colored passengers by partitioning
diners and the allotment of space, in accordance with the rules, as
follows:

“(1) That one of the two tables at Station No. 1 located to the
left side of the aisle facing the buffet, seating four persons, shall be
reserved exclusively for colored 1'>:tsseite‘t-t‘s, and the other tables in
the diner shall be reserved exclusively for white passengers.

“(2) Before startingr each meal, draw the partition curtain sep—
arating the table in Station No. 1, described above, from the table
on that side of the aisle in Station No. 2, the curtain to remain so
drawn for the duration of the meal.

“(3) A ‘ltcserved' card shall be kept in place on the left—hand table
in Station No. 1, described above, at all times during the meal except
when such table is occupied as provided in these rules.

“(4) These rules become effective March 1, 1946.

"R. K. McClain, Assistant Vice-President.”

Counsel for the railway company, at a subsequent hearing, corrected
the above rules “to the extent of using the word ‘negrocs’ in place

HENDERSON U. ['NITED STATES. 5

On remand, the full Commission, with two members
dissenting and one not participating. found that the
modiﬁed rules do not violate the Interstate Commerce
Act and that no order for the future is necessary." 269
I. C. C. 73. The appellant. promptly instituted the
present proceeding before the District Court, constituted
of the same three members as before, seeking to have the
Commission’s order set aside and a cease and desist order
issued. 28 U S C. §§ 41 (28), 43~48; 49 TC. S. C. § 17
(9); see also. 28 U. S. C. Supp. 111, §§ 1336. 1398. 2284,

2321, 2325. “'ith one member dissenting, the court sus-
tained the modiﬁed rules on the ground that the accom—
modations are adequate to serve. the average number of
Negro passengers and are “proportionately fair.” 80 F.
Supp. 32, 39. The case is here on direct appeal. 28
U. S. C. Supp. 111. §§ 1253, 2101 (b). In this Court, the

of ‘colored persons.‘ ” Also, the evidence shows, and the Commission
has stated, that “White and Negro soldiers are served together, with-
out distinction.” 258 I. C. C. 413, 415. The rules, accordingly, are
treated as applicable only to civilian passengers. The company
further showed that it is now substituting a ﬁve—foot high wooden
partition in place of the curtain. The stcward‘s office is being placed
in the table space opposite that reserved for Negro passengers and
a similar wooden partition is being erected between that office and
the rest of the ear.

' The company was permitted to introduce two tabulations, cover-
ing about ten days each, showing the comparative mnnbers of meals
served to white and Negro passengers on trips comparable to the
one which the appellant had taken. These show that only about
4% of the total meals served were served to Negro passengers whereas
four reserved seats exceed 9% of a total seating capacity of 44. On
the other hand, the tabulations also show that at one meal 17 Negro
passengers, and at each of 20 meals more than eight Negro passengers,
were served. Similarly, the brief ﬁled by the Commission states that,
out of the 630 serving periods reported, on 15 occasions more than
four times as many white passengers were served as there were seats
reserved for them, and, on 541 occasions, there were two or more
rounds of servings.

25
6 HENDERSON D. FNITED STATES.

United States ﬁled a brief and argued orally in support
of the appellant.

It is clear that appellant has standing to bring these
proceedings. He is an aggrieved party, free to travel
again on the Southern Railway. Having been subjected
to practices of the railroad which the Commission and
the court below found to Violate the Interstate Commerce
Act, he may challenge the railroads current regulations
on the ground that they permit the recurrence of com—
parable i'iolations. .IIz'tc/ictt V. Cutter] States, 313 If. S.
80. 92%)3.

The material language in § 3 (:1) of the Interstate Com-
merce Act has been in that statute since its adoption in
1887. 24 Stat. 380. From the beginning. the Interstate
Commerce Commission has recognized the application of
that language to discriminations between white and Negro
passengers. Coil/mitt Y. Il'estern tt' Atlantic 1?. C0,, 1
I. C. C. 339: ” Heard V. (r'mrt/ta If. Ca, 1 I. C. C. 428;
Hear/t Y. Georg/ta 1?. Ca, 3 I. C. C. 111; [ft/it‘ai’ds- Y. Nag/1—
t‘tltt’. C. it” St. L. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 247; Cozart V. Scat/tern
It’. Can It} 1. C. C. 1226; Gaines V. Seaboard :1i'r Linc R. Co,
16 I. C. C. 471: Crosby V. St. Lam's-San Francisco 11’. Co,
112 I. C. C. 239. That section recently was so applied
in JIttc/iclt V. ('izttcd States, supra.

The decision of this case is largely controlled )y that»
in the JIttctzctt case. There a Negro passenger holding
a ﬁrst-class ticket was denied a Pullman seat, although
such a. seat was unoccupied and would have been avail—
able to him it he had been white. The railroad rules

“"The Western and Atlantic llailroad Company will l)(‘ notified
to cease and desist t'roiu subjecting ('oloreil persons to undue and
unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage in violation ol‘ section 3
ol' the .-\et to regulate couuneree. and trout furnishing to colored per—
sons purchasing lll'rl-(‘l:l\> Ilt'lit'is on its road aeconunotlations which
are not equally sale and comfortable with those furnished other ﬁrst—
class passengers." 1 I. C. C. 53539, 2517.

HENDERSON 1'. UNITED STATES. 7

had allotted a limited amount of Pullman space, con—
sisting of compartments and drawing rooms, to Negro
passengers and, because that space was occupied, the
complainant was excluded from the Pullman car and
required to ride in a second—class coach. This Court held
that the passenger thereby had been subjected to an
unreasonable disadvantage in violation of §3 (1).“—

The similarity between that case and this is ines—
capable. The appellant here was denied a seat in the
dining ear although at least one seat was vacant and
would have been available to him. under the existing
rules. it' he had been white.‘ The issue before us. as in
the JIilc/tc/l case. is whether the railroads current rules
and practices cause passengers to be subjected to undue or
unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in violation of § 3
(1,). \Ve ﬁnd that they do.

The right to be free from unreasonable discriminations
belongs, under § 3 ('1’). to each particular person. Where
a dining" ear is available to passengers holding tickets
entitlingr them to use it, each such passenger is equally
entitled to its facilities in accordance with reasonable
regulations. The denial of dining service to any such
passenger by the rules before us subjects him to a