110 NY 418 (1888)
Black New Yorkers in the Gilded Age were mainly spared the harshest forms of segregation and the deadly violence experienced by Black Americans living in the South. But this does not mean that the Empire State was a beacon of progress. Following the Civil War, Black people continued to suffer the indignities of racial discrimination. When the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870, New York was the only state in the nation that required Black people, and only Black people, to own real property to be eligible to vote. And even though Plessy v. Ferguson is widely recognized as a singularly low point in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, few people realize that the “separate but equal” doctrine justifying segregation of public schools was well entrenched in New York, having been upheld by the Court of Appeals in People ex rel. King v. Gallagher (93 NY 438 [1883]), more than a decade before Plessy was decided.
Nonetheless, the Gilded Age did bring significant advancements for persons of African descent. In People v. King (110 NY 418 [1888]), the Court of Appeals held that Black New Yorkers were constitutionally entitled to enter and enjoy, on equal terms with all other persons, the privileges offered by places of public entertainment.
The defendant, Calvin King, was the co-owner of a skating rink in the village of Norwich. In 1884, three Black men tried to buy tickets to a roller-skating exhibition. King instructed the ticket sellers not to sell tickets to the three men because they were persons of color. King was indicted under Penal Code section 383, which stated, in relevant part, that “no citizen of this state can, by reason of race, color or previous condition of servitude, be excluded from the equal enjoyment of any accommodation, facility or privilege furnished by * * * owners, managers or lessees of theaters or other places of amusement.“ After a trial before the Court of Sessions of Chenango County King was found guilty of violating the statute, a misdemeanor. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the General Term of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Department.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the defendant argued that section 383 was an unconstitutional interference with his rights as a private property owner. In a majority opinion authored by Judge Charles Andrews, the court affirmed the conviction. Judge Andrews weighed the importance of the public policy underlying section 383 and found that, as demonstrated in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, it reflected a strong national policy to prohibit racial prejudice and secure for Black persons equal rights with white persons. In the majority’s view, the statute did not unreasonably interfere with the private rights of persons owning and operating places of public amusement and was a valid exercise by the legislature “of the police power of the state,” “a power incapable of exact definition, but the existence of which is essential to every well-ordered government” and “may be exerted whenever necessary to secure the peace, good order, health, morals and general welfare of the community.”
Judge Andrews’ opinion contains an eloquent passage addressing the injustice of racial discrimination:
The members of the African race, born or naturalized in this country, are citizens of the states where they reside and of the United States. Both justice and the public interest concur in a policy which shall elevate them as individuals and relieve them from oppressive or degrading discrimination, and which shall encourage and cultivate a spirit which will make them self-respecting, contented and loyal citizens, and give them a fair chance in the struggle of life, weighted, as they are at best, with so many disadvantages. It is evident that to exclude colored people from places of public resort on account of their race is to fix upon them a brand of inferiority, and tends to fix their position as a servile and dependent people. It is, of course, impossible to enforce social equality by law. But the law in question simply insures to colored citizens the right to admission, on equal terms with others, to public resorts and to equal enjoyment of privileges of a quasi public character.
The dissenting Judges, Rufus Peckham, Sr. and John Gray, did not issue a written opinion.
Sources
Frances Bergan, The History of the New York Court of Appeals, 1847-1932, at 163-65.
Brian Quinn, “Charles Andrews,” The Judges of the New York Court of Appeals, Albert M. Rosenblatt, ed., at 181-82.
David A. Weinstein, “People Ex Rel. King v. Gallagher and the Forgotten Legal Struggle Over Racial Segregation in the New York State Public Schools,” City University of New York L. Rev., Vol. 28, Issue 1, Winter 2025.