Harriet E. Cully

1876: Harriet E. Cully vs. B&O Railroad

Cully, a Black woman, sued the B&O Railroad in 1876. She sued behalf of herself and 17 other passengers, who claimed that they were not given equal accommodations due to race. The case had a number of familiar faces in the segregation/transportation domain: Judge Giles was presiding, and lawyer Archibald Stirling Jr. was arguing on Cully's behalf.

Stirling claimed that the passengers should have been given equal accommodation. Why? The Civil Rights Act of 1875, and the 14th Amendment, both guarenteed equal rights for all citizens. B&O representatives argued that riding in a railway car was not a civil right. They also questioned the legality of the Act in the first place.

The Baltimore Sun article at right shows the first half of the article, with Stirling's argument.

The Sun, March 22, 1877: Local Matters

Screenshot: America's Historical Newspapers

The Sun, March 23, 1877: Important Constitutional Decision

Screenshot: America's Historical Newspapers

The very next day, a decision was made. Giles ruled that traveling on a railway car wasn't guarenteed for U.S. citizens, but for state citizens. So the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act of 1875 didn't apply. The Sun article states, "The right of the plaintiff, if she was injured by the railroad company in any way, was like that of every other citizen of the State, one to be enforced by suit in the State courts, and not under the act of Congress."

The decision further noted that the B&O gave equal accommodation to white and Black passengers. This essentially disqualified the argument before it began.

The Baltimore Sun article at right shows part of Giles' decision. The full article explores several previous cases, including the New Orleans Slaughter-House cases.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse