Chapter XXVIII: Section 2: provides (6)

A few nights later, I noticed two young, well-mannered colored
girls at a nearby table. As I went out I met the manager and
said to him, "Do many Negroes come here to eat?" He said,
"No, occasionally they come in, but they don't come back more
than once, or at most twice." "How do you manage it?" "Well,
under the law, we can't refuse to let them eat, but we can
charge them any price we like. The first time we charge them
enough to keep them from coming back. Then if they persist
and come again, as soon as they go down the line, I see to
it that something is put in their food which makes it taste
bad--salt or Epsom salts. They never come back after that."
After a pause he added, "You know we are within the law. We
can't have them coming here--it would ruin our trade."

In the inexpensive restaurants on the edge of the "Loop," various practices are followed, as indicated by the following reports:

Miss B. S. met a friend and went into the ---- Cafeteria on
Lake Street, near State, upstairs. They were served, but the
waiter put screens around their table while they were eating.

* * * * *

In May, 1921, I went to a lunchroom on Van Buren Street to
get a lunch at noon. Six or seven men were at the counter,
and were served as fast as they came in. Finally all seats
were filled and three waiters were doing nothing, so I asked
to be served. The waiter pretended not to hear me, then said
roughly, "What do you want?" I said, "I do not know until I
get a bill of fare." He pitched it at me and I asked for some
baked beans. He stuck his head through the chef's window and
gave my order. He brought me a plate on which were fourteen
beans, and one small roll. I asked for a glass of water and he
brought me a half-glass. I asked for butter (which had been
served with two rolls to white patrons) and he said it would
cost me a nickel. He said with emphasis, "It will cost _you_
a nickel." I said, "You give me the butter, and then watch me
and see if I pay for it." I asked for some pie and he gave me
a piece about half the size he was serving the others. Then
he said again, "Remember that butter will cost you a nickel
extra." I said, "I won't pay it." He said, "You will pay for
that dinner before you eat a bite of it." I said, "No chance,
because I am not going to pay you at all, either before or
after I eat. After I have finished I will pay the cashier at
the desk." He looked at me hard and I kept on eating. Then he
threw me down a check for 25 cents. I said, "Brother, you are
wrong. My bill is only 20 cents. Your menu says beans are 15
cents and pie is 5 cents, and you gave me only one roll when
to all of the others you served two." He said again, "I told
you your butter would cost you a nickel." I said, "Now, you
watch me right close when I go out and see if I pay for it."
I told the cashier that my check called for 25 cents when it
should be 20, "beans 15, pie 5, and if you can make 25 out of
that all right." She said, "You know I have to collect what
the check calls for, or else make good myself." I told her
I appreciated her position but would not pay 25 cents for a
20-cent lunch. Then my waiter stepped up with an iron tap in
his hand, and said, "I told you that butter would cost you a
nickel, and now you pay it or else----." I said, I will "else,"
and laid down twenty cents and walked out. At the door he gave
me a push but did not strike me.

The white proprietor of a drug-store in a residence neighborhood volunteered this story to a member of the Commission's staff:

Several years ago, there was a fine old colored man who used
to come in frequently to buy drugs, supplies, etc. One day he
came in with his wife, sat down at one of the little tables,
and asked for soda water. My clerk refused to serve them, and
the idea occurred to me that I would serve them myself in such
a way that there would be no possibility that they would ever
come back. I compounded a vile concoction and served it to
them. They tasted it, paid for it, thanked me, and went out
without making any complaint. I have never got over feeling
mean about it. I not only humiliated them, and insulted them,
but I cheated them out of their money.

An instance of unusual absence of friction in contacts under conditions which might be expected to produce it was given by a white woman who visited a restaurant patronized by many whites and Negroes:

In talking with Mr. O---- he asked me, "Would you consider it
possible that you would voluntarily go into a restaurant and
eat your lunch where you might have a Negro sitting on the
next stool, or perhaps one on either side of you at a table?"
I answered promptly, "No, I can't imagine it." He said, "A year
ago I wouldn't have imagined such a thing possible myself, but
now I do it quite frequently. There is a restaurant across the
street from my office, right here in the heart of the Negro
district, which a few years ago was a very good one, with
regular table service, excellent food, and all the rest. Last
year it was changed into a sort of a cafeteria, with a lunch
counter down one side, and some tables. You get your knife
and fork, go to the serving counter, and a man gives you on a
plate whatever you order. The other day I found myself between
two colored men, and took a good look at the restaurant. There
is absolutely no disturbance, or even consciousness of any
reason for disturbance."

Today I decided I would try it myself. The restaurant has no
frills; it is simply an eating-place. I chose a corner seat
at a table, because I could see all over the room. As I sat
down, a courteous arm reached across the table to shove back
the used dishes. I looked up to say "thank you," and found a
good-looking young colored man opposite. No further attention
was paid to me, nor was there any consciousness in his face,
other than courtesy. In a few minutes, two young white truck
drivers took the other places at my table. They were in working
jeans, and except that the color was blue instead of khaki,
looked just like the young soldiers in transport service who
used to come into my canteen in France. At the next table was
a quietly dressed young colored girl eating her lunch in a
business-like way. A young white father brought in his little
daughter. At the long lunch counter were neighborhood business
men, white and colored, some professional men, each taking
whatever stool happened to be vacant. Occasionally a truck
driver or roughly dressed working man came in. Even the white
dandy, immaculate in linen and with a cane hooked over his
arm, took his cup of coffee to the counter and sat between a
laborer and a business man.

In theaters, as in restaurants, there are petty evasions of the law, disagreeable encounters, and small but insistent snobberies. A colored investigator reported the result of a test of the purchase of tickets for a play which had had a long run, as follows:

On July 5 I went down to the ---- theater and asked the ticket
seller if I could get two seats for Thursday or Friday night
between the third and ninth rows, center. She hunted out two
seats in the ninth row for Thursday. I said, "If you have them
I would prefer them for Friday." I asked the price, paid her,
and she thanked me.

Friday, I went to the theater, and handed the doorman my
tickets. He tore off the coupons, and directed me to the
main-floor door. The lady usher seated us three rows from
the back on the aisle. I counted and found that I was in the
seventeenth row. I went to the usher and said, "I beg your
pardon, but you seated me in the wrong place." She took the
coupons, said, "Wait a second," and started out with them. I
followed to see that she did not exchange my coupons. She went
to the lobby and talked with the manager. He looked at me and
said, "Well, seat them; there is nothing else to do now." She
went back, gave my coupons to another usher, who asked her
if I was to be seated in the seats the coupons called for.
She answered, "I guess so." Then we were shown to the correct
seats. There was no protest from those around us.

The manager of this theater was later interviewed. He had been in Chicago only a few months and was not at all interested in the general question of race relations, but was decided in his opinion that the attendance of Negroes in any high-class theater was not desirable. His views were about as follows:

Not many Negroes buy seats down stairs. Usually the ticket
seller gives them tickets in the balcony or gallery and on the
side aisles. Usually had complaints from white patrons if they
found a Negro seated near them, especially if there were ladies
in the party. It was not that the conduct of the Negroes was
objectionable, but their mere presence was objectionable. If
Negroes present tickets for the best main-floor seats, ushers
try to put them in less conspicuous places. If they insist on
taking their seats as shown on tickets, nothing can be done.
If white patrons object, every effort is made to change their
seats. Usual objection is offensive odor and proximity.

In making the study of theaters, certain tests were established. A Negro would ask at the box-office for seats on the main floor within certain rows and on the aisle. In the preceding report it will be noted that seats were sold readily, but some difficulty was found in using them. In the next report, conditions were reversed:

Mr. J----, Negro, asked for tickets, and was told that there
was nothing on the main floor further in front than the
twenty-third row. Miss H----, white, who was standing by him
as he made the request, and heard the answer, moved up to
the window and was immediately and without any remark, sold
tickets in the seventeenth row on the aisle.

These tickets were presented by Mr. and Mrs. S----, Negroes. They report:

We arrived at 8:15, five minutes before the opening of the
performance. The ticket taker tore off our stubs and returned
them to us without any hesitancy. The ushers, who were women,
glanced at the seat numbers and directed us to our seats,
which were in a very conspicuous location on the first floor.
They were in the seventeenth row, on the aisle. The people
around us, even the ones immediately next to us, were not in
the least concerned at our presence. The treatment accorded
us in general could not have been surpassed.

A different report comes from another "Loop" theater, which has always been rather conservative in the standard of plays which it presents:

My husband and I wished to see a play at ---- Theater, and
bought seats several days in advance that we might have a
choice. When we were shown to our seats, however, we were
surprised to find that our tickets called for seats in the
gallery, and in a corner which did not afford a view, and
made them more than undesirable. We noticed that there were
several vacant seats in the balcony, also on the first floor.
My husband went to the box office and tried to exchange the
seats. The ticket seller refused to make the exchange and also
became insulting in his remarks to us. Afterwards we made the
attempt to secure seats on the first floor of this same theater
several days in advance of the performance which we wished to
attend. We were told there were no seats on the first floor
which we could get.

A contrasting experience follows:

On Tuesday I went to the ---- Theater, and applied for two
tickets on the main floor, center aisle, between the third and
eleventh rows. The ticket seller stated politely that he had
two tickets in the ninth row on the left. When we attended the
performance, nothing unusual occurred. Other patrons made no
comment, and in no way could we observe any objection made to
our presence. There were no other Negroes at the performance.

Reports of investigators indicate that the managers of movies are convinced that their main floors, at least, should be guarded against Negroes. In most of the commercial amusement places, Negroes seldom have difficulty if they are willing to sit in the balcony, though attempts are frequently made to seat them on the aisles next to the walls, even when there are center seats empty. It is rare that any report is obtained of objections by white patrons to the actual presence of Negroes when they are well-mannered, well-dressed, and appreciative auditors.

As a rule movie theaters do not sell reserved seats, general admission entitling any patron to any seat in the house. But the following detailed report of the experience of two intelligent, well-dressed, quiet-mannered Negro women at a new movie theater on State Street is typical:

Purchased tickets, and entered the large lobby which extends
across the front of the house. From this lobby there are closed
doors at the entrance of several aisles, so that patrons are
directed by ushers to different aisles, supposedly wherever
there are vacant seats. We followed directions, and went to
the extreme left of the lobby. We opened the door, and the
usher in charge of this aisle started down toward the front
to show us seats. We saw at once that the narrow section of
seats next to the wall was empty except for one colored woman
sitting about the middle of the section. Instead of following
the usher down the aisle, and taking seats indicated to the
right of this section, we turned through a row of empty seats
on the left-hand section, and sat next to a woman in the aisle
seat. This put us two rows from the rear in a side middle
section, instead of in the section which seemed to be reserved
for colored patrons, next to the wall. As the usher returned
to his station he said, "We have some lovely seats in the
balcony; wouldn't you prefer sitting there?" He was courteous,
and I thanked him, telling him that we were quite satisfied
with the seats we had taken.

Later, seeing two vacant seats further front in the center
section which gave us a much better view we decided to take
them and see what would happen. As we rose, the usher tried to
block us by putting his hands on the back of the seat in front,
and saying, "I am sorry that you can't take those seats." I
brushed by him and took one of the seats. He tried the same
thing with Mrs. H----, and she also brushed by and joined me.
There were scattered vacant seats both in the section we left
and the one to which we moved. We remained until the end of
the show without embarrassment.

The manager of this theater has had many years of experience in Chicago, and was quite willing to discuss race contacts. Nothing in his words would indicate any strong prejudice against Negroes, even when expressing his conviction that they should keep to places intended especially for them. He said, in substance:

Not many Negroes buy tickets--perhaps ten or a dozen a day.
An effort is made to seat them in one section of the house,
preferably the balcony, to which they are directed by ushers.
Reason is the complaint by white patrons who object to sitting
next to them for an hour, or hour and a half. Offensive odor
reason usually given. White patrons often complain to manager
as they go out if Negro has been sitting near them.

Conduct of Negroes is not often objectionable--runs about
the same as all patrons. Occasionally one tries to "start
something." Recently two Negroes came to manager in crowded
lobby after they had attended the show and objected to their
seats on the balcony to which they had been sent by ushers,
saying there were vacant seats on the main floor. Wanted to
know why they were discriminated against. Manager did not want
an argument in the presence of other patrons, and told them
that as they had seen the show, heard the music, and shared
everything with other patrons, he did not see they had any real
cause for complaint. Called attention to the notice printed
on almost every theater ticket in some form or other to the
effect that the management reserves the right to revoke the
license granted in the sale of the ticket, by refunding the
money paid.

The same two women bought tickets the next day and attended a movie in an older and very popular "Loop" theater. They reported that they had no difficulty of any kind.

On a test made of a new and popular movie theater in an outlying section the investigator reported:

There were four of us in the party on June 5. We were told
by the usher that there were no seats on the first floor, and
that we would find seats in the first balcony. I think he was
right, for there were white people also sent to the balcony. We
were ushered in promptly, but another usher met us and said,
"Right on up to the second balcony." We said we preferred
seats in the first balcony, and walked by him. He went and
got two more ushers and stood in front of us to prevent us
from going into the first balcony, insisting that there were
no seats there. One of the young ladies stepped around the
usher, and saw three vacant seats. She called them to the
attention of the usher, and he then said he meant there were
no seats for four. Two of our party took those seats, and the
other two waited about twenty minutes till they could get the
seats they wanted. After getting into the first balcony, we
saw vacant seats in at least four rows, two, three, and four
seats together into which we might quietly have gone had the
usher been courteous.

On June 18, 1920, a well-known Negro employed in the City Hall was denied admission to a movie theater at Halsted and Sixty-third streets. There is a small but long-established Negro colony about a mile west of this location.

In business places of various kinds, contacts are determined largely by the kind of service offered. Department-store managers questioned by investigators concerning their Negro patronage and the use of Negro girls as clerks, stated that the public had definite preferences, and probably would not willingly tolerate Negroes either as patrons or as clerks. In stores selling general merchandise, courteous treatment is, as a rule, accorded to Negro patrons, although there are occasional annoying incidents. The attitude then taken is determined by the standing and influence of the Negroes discriminated against. For instance:

At one of the largest department stores, two Negro women,
both school teachers, were refused service in the basement
shoe department. The clerks refused to fit shoes for them. A
Negro alderman became interested in this case, and because of
refusal of service, canceled his account.

The wife of a prominent Negro attorney went into a State Street
candy store and was flatly refused service. Her husband brought
suit and got damages.

Miss V---- was refused service at a large State Street
department store by one of the clerks. The manager was
interviewed and the clerk reprimanded and transferred. On the
second visit, Miss V---- received attention.

In residence areas which are largely white, certain stores practice a peculiar subversion of the law in the effort to regulate contacts. A Negro resident of Woodlawn stated that his seven-year-old daughter had gone to the store to purchase goods for a costume to wear at a school entertainment. She was given material for which she had not asked, which she did not want, and for which she was overcharged. Frightened at the manners of the clerk, she took it. When it was returned, the clerk was extremely abusive, and told her that colored people were not wanted in the store. The little girl had, according to her parents, made a mistake in entering the store. Her parents were acquainted with the attitude of the management and avoided the place. In the following reports, there is evident the sense of injustice felt by both whites and Negroes concerned in the contacts:

Miss S. T---- wrote a prominent musical college and made
arrangements for taking the summer normal-training courses.
Her tuition fee was accepted, and the classes arranged. On her
arrival, the manager received the balance of her money for the
entire course, but told her the classes she wanted were full,
and she would have to take private lessons with another teacher.
The teacher of the desired classes told her the manager had
not been frank, and that he feared the objection of southern
white girls in the classes. Miss T---- made repeated attempts
to get into the classes, but each time was told to apply again.
This she did until it was too late to catch up with her back
work. Other pupils were given prompt admission to the classes.

Two investigators were instructed to go to a public restroom in a large office building on State Street where there are many small shops selling women's wearing apparel. Their experience follows:

On July 6, at one P.M. with Mrs. H----, I visited the public
restroom in the ---- building. It is on the eleventh floor,
on the main hall, and the door to the suite of rooms stood
open. On one side of the entrance hall there is a small room
used for a shoe-shining, with a Negro in attendance. Next on
the same side is a large lavatory. Facing the outside door
is the entrance to the restroom proper, which is large enough
for ten or fifteen women, and is fitted up with wicker chairs,
lounge, table, etc.

As we were about to enter the restroom, the woman in charge
stood with her arm across the door, and said, "You are not
to go in there; you may go into the lavatory." We asked why,
and she said, "Those are the orders of the office." We went
into the restroom, and she did not offer any opposition, but
a little later came to us and said, "You are not allowed in
here. You will have to see the manager."

I asked the attendant for the manager's name and room number,
which she gave me. I related the incident to him. He told
me that the attendant had informed me correctly, that the
eleventh-floor restroom was reserved for "white folks" and that
"colored folks" were not allowed to use it. They could use a
restroom on the nineteenth floor set aside for colored employees
of the building, and for any "colored folks" who might come
into the building. He said it was one of the "iron-clad rules
of the man who owned the building," and that "the attendant
had it down in black and white."

Difficulties of this sort which confront Negroes and the efforts by Negroes to share equal treatment in public accommodations as well as the experiences met with when cases reach the courts were commented upon by Judge Cook, of the municipal court, in testimony before the Commission. He said:

During the earlier part of 1918 I sat in what was known as
the criminal jury branch. That is the branch to which were
assigned all criminal cases in the municipal court where the
defendants demanded a trial by jury and were not tried at the
police station. Among them were cases involving violations of
what is known as the civil-rights law, where a colored man had
a druggist or the proprietor of a moving picture or legitimate
theater arrested for refusing to serve him soda water or
refreshments at the drug store or to furnish him admission by
ticket at a movie or legitimate theater, or if he did furnish
him admission by selling him a ticket, limiting the ticket
which he would sell to some undesirable portion of the house
or to the gallery and not to the main floor, claiming that
the theater was crowded downstairs and that there were no seats.

I suppose I tried during the early part of 1918 and the summer
of 1919 probably a half-dozen of those civil-rights cases. In
every one of them that I tried, there was virtually a clear
case against the defendant. The jury in every instance was
practically a white jury, or may have had one or two colored
men. Notwithstanding that I gave very positive and clear
instructions as to what the law was--to wit, that they were
entitled to equal rights and privileges in public places and
that if the jury believed from the evidence that the plaintiff
was not accorded such right, there was a violation of the
law and the defendant should be punished, and after elaborate
argument by counsel for both the prosecution and the defendant
(and by parenthesis I may say in all of these cases the state's
attorney prosecuted vigorously), the jury, notwithstanding the
plain evidence and the instructions of the court, went out and
in about such time as it would take them to sign the verdict
and return to court, would bring in a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Of course in the criminal court in a case of that kind, the
jury is the judge of both the law and the fact. Therefore,
I was not in a position to grant a new trial. The white jury
simply say that law was not the law in Illinois or they would
not convict under such circumstances, and having once acquitted
the man the court and the state were without any remedy. Now
I have always thought that was unjust.

It was his opinion that those Negroes who did bring cases into court made a mistake in prosecuting them from a criminal standpoint. It seemed to be, in his opinion, hopeless for Negroes to assert their rights through the criminal courts.

Another judge of long experience in the Chicago courts expressed the view that few Negroes brought in cases involving discrimination. He thought that especially the better class of Negroes would not bring them because of the unpleasantness involved and because the damages obtained in most cases would not pay the attorney's charges. "Most Negroes," he said, "have found out by experience what the actual feeling is and act accordingly, trying to avoid unpleasant experiences as much as possible. Although there would be no trouble in getting a verdict in any clear case, the amount obtained would not compensate for the trouble involved." He did not believe that any jury would convict a white defendant on a criminal charge of discrimination. A prominent Negro attorney, who formerly held a responsible state office, in giving his general experience said:

In cases involving only Negroes on each side, both judges
and juries will act squarely between them; in cases involving
white defendants and Negro plaintiffs, the tendency is to give
considerably less credibility or weight to Negro testimony;
in cases involving Negro defendants and white plaintiffs, the
tendency is to give more weight to white testimony.

He stated further that in discrimination cases, where the law had been clearly violated, there was usually no difficulty in getting a verdict and damages for $25 and up, but that he did not care much about handling such cases and Negroes did not care to push them, because they were unpleasant and expensive.

II. "BLACK AND TAN" RESORTS

The intimate association of Negroes and whites in the cabarets of the South Side has occasioned frequent and heated protests. Negro men are there seen with white women and white men with Negro women. Although mixed couples constitute somewhat less than 10 per cent of the patronage, this mingling is used to characterize all of the association there. These resorts, with their liquor selling and coarse and vulgar dancing, are highly dangerous to morals and established law and order, and a nuisance to the neighborhoods in which they are located. They are used as amusement places, both by white couples living in other sections of the city and by Negro couples who live near them. In fact, although many of the resorts are patronized by an equal number of whites and Negroes, the actual mixed couples are few. The habitués of these resorts are usually of an irresponsible type of pleasure seekers, and frequently they are vicious and immoral. Newspapers and several of the civic agencies have violently criticized these places as a menace, but in their attacks the emphasis has usually been shifted from the menace to morals to that of arousing sentiment against the mingling of races. The police on numbers of occasions have been urged to close the places in which this form of association took place. In most cases they have not done so, stating as their reason that, although mingling was undesirable, there was no law prohibiting such contacts, and that evidence of violations of such laws as those concerning liquor selling or decency would be necessary to warrant their closing.

During 1920 the Negro press began a series of attacks on violations of law and against the immoral resorts in the Negro residence areas, including the so-called "black and tan" cabarets, some of which were the most notorious violators. This was followed by similar attacks from the white local newspapers. The emphasis in the white papers, however, was on the race mingling. An extract from one of the articles in a white paper is given:

"LID" A JOKE AS PEKIN SHIMMIES DEFIANCE OF LAW

LIQUOR, SIRENS, JAZZ, RACE RAINBOW RIOT IN CAFÉ

"Lawless liquor," sensuous "shimmy," solicitous sirens,
wrangling waiters, all the tints of the racial rainbow, black
and tan and white, dancing, drinking, singing, early Sunday
morning at the Pekin café, 2700 South State Street....

"BLACK AND TAN AND WHITE"

The crowd began to arrive. In came a mighty black man with
two white girls. A scarred white man entered with three girls,
two young and painted, the other merely painted.

Two well dressed youths hopped up the stairs with two
timid girls. Seven young men--they looked like back o' the
Yards--came with two women, one heavy footed, the other laughing
hysterically.

Two fur-coated "high yaller" girls romped up with a slender
white man. An attorney gazed happily on the party through horn
rimmed glasses. The waiters called, shouted, whistled when
each party arrived--a full table meant big tips.

At one o'clock the place was crowded. Meanwhile a syncopating
colored man had been vamping cotton field blues on the piano. A
brown girl sang.... All the tables were filled at two o'clock,
black men with white girls, white men with yellow girls, old,
young, all filled with the abandon brought about by illicit
whisky and liquor music.... The Pekin is again the Pekin of
years ago. Only more so.

The reply of a Negro newspaper to the series of articles in the white press on these resorts expresses the reactions of Negroes to this view:

BLACK AND TANS AND RACE RIOTS

It is an established conviction that the so-called
"intermingling of races" in the cabarets of the South Side
is a fruitful source of riots. To those whose minds are bent
in this belief, the fact that no riot has ever yet started in
one of them is of little importance. Men believe, as a rule,
most readily what they earnestly wish to believe. It matters
little how absurd the proposition, if it expresses a desire
they will make of it an everlasting verity even though it costs
them the kingdom of heaven. And so it happens that we are told
that the Abyssinians burned a flag and almost precipitated
a race riot because they happened be to standing in front of
the Entertainers' Café where Negroes and white persons dance
on the same floor and occasionally together.

To carry further these deductions the United Cigar Store also
should be closed because one of the fanatics shot into it and
killed a white man. The connection of both of these places
with the incident is just about the same, if not a little
worse for the cigar store.

The fury back of complaints like that, for instance, of one
Mr. Farwell of the Law and Order League invites suspicion. In
all seriousness what is this crime of association for which
Mr. Farwell would have these places closed? If demoralization
of character is more certain in mixed places or liquor sold
more openly can it be urged that race contact is responsible?
It cannot. The sore point is the contact. These places are
located in the most densely populated Negro neighborhoods.
Attendance is voluntary and so is whatever amount of association
that follows. There is no manhandling of white innocents to
force them into the society of Negroes. Neither do Negroes
go snooping around the high lights of the West or North sides
seeking white companionship. But that is not the point. When
this antipathy is analyzed it becomes apparent that there is a
well defined intention to prove that any relationship varying
too sharply from the master and servant type is wrong. It
is the yelp of tribal jealousy. It is the gaunt denial of a
fallacious orthodoxy which proclaims that certain instincts
will keep certain persons eternally apart. It is that complex
of emotion into which all discussions of race relations resolve
themselves.

The resentment of Negroes at the poorly veiled thrusts is
perfectly justifiable. However unwholesome to morals these
places may be they refuse to join in the chorus of hate against
amusement places just because they put no restraints upon their
associations. They feel that they are human and at liberty to
seek pleasure if they so desire where contacts are mutually
agreeable. Those who do not care for this contact will stay
away. Because a white woman will dance with a colored man or a
white man with a colored woman there is no argument that a riot
will follow. Persons who dance together are not so likely to
fight as persons who stand at a distance and call each other
bad names.

Rationally considered there is no ground for these contentions.
They are insulting. If danger is ahead for the city when the
Irish and Italians visit the same places of amusement or the
Swedes and Lithuanians, then some thought will be given by
Negroes to eliminating their dangers. There is no point to
calling the patrol because Mr. Farwell and the News think it
complicates the race question.

This paper condemned all of these places because they were
nuisances to the neighborhood--the blacks, the black and tans
and the whites--it did not by this condemnation imply that
color affects morals.

III. CULTURAL CONTACTS

Contacts of whites and Negroes in institutions of learning, general cultural agencies, and meetings ordinarily involve no friction and are frequently directly beneficial to race relations. Many Negroes visit and use the public libraries. In fact, instances of objections on the part of the public in this institution appear to be extremely few. In the reading-rooms Negroes sit where they wish, and no objections to their presence are noted. At a branch library on Oakwood Boulevard over 70 per cent of the patronage is of Negroes, and, the director says, very cordial relations exist. The civil-service system has made a number of Negroes eligible for positions in the direct public-service branches of the city government. No apparent difficulties or objections have resulted.

The University of Chicago and Northwestern University have for many years had Negro students. There were in 1921 more than sixty at the University of Chicago, and, although many southern white students attend, there have been no conspicuous difficulties resulting from the associations. On the contrary, certain individual Negroes have been very popular with the student body. During the 1920 football season two Negroes were members of the football squad, and for several years the favorite of the "track" was Binga Dismond, a Negro runner.

There is no Negro member of the City Club or of the Woman's City Club, although the question of admitting Negroes has occasionally been discussed. The Chicago Woman's Club has two Negro members, one for more than fifteen years. Negroes, however, have been welcomed to meetings and in some instances have themselves held meetings there.

A few white churches have several Negro members, usually of long standing. There are instances of white churches accepting particular Negro members, with some apprehension that they might bring friends. The Catholic and Christian Science churches welcome the presence of Negroes at their services. There is no Christian Science church exclusively for Negroes, and several hundred Negroes attend the various services of this church.

Many of the more definitely intellectual agencies like the Chicago Ethical Society, the Chicago Rational Society, and the Sunday Evening Club have regular Negro attendance. At the Chicago Rational Society one of the young hostesses is a Negro.

In these forms of contact it is seldom, if ever, that Negroes are discourteously received. This may be due to the relatively high class of whites and Negroes who share these associations.

IV. CONTACTS IN CO-OPERATIVE EFFORTS FOR RACE BETTERMENT

Most of the important social organizations and agencies of the city which aim definitely at the improvement of the Negro group have mixed boards of control and supervision. The philanthropy, business ability, and influence of white members is combined with the influence of Negro members and their intelligent understanding of their own group problems.

The Young Men's Christian Association, the Young Women's Christian Association, the Chicago Urban League, Community Service, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Inter-racial Committee organized by the Chicago Woman's Club are examples of this form of joint effort. The sentiments of both groups in contact may be discussed and, on the basis of represented group conditions and sentiments, programs are formulated and carried out. This association and exchange of sentiment provide a means of breaking down the isolation between the groups and at the same time offer a means of extending the representative thought of Negroes through their white associates to circles in which contacts are either prohibited or restricted by custom and tradition.