ans, where information was filed him in the matter set forth, for a violation of Louisiana act. Mr. Plessy’s argument was that the Louisiana Act did not apply to him being more of white descent. The main point of Plessy’s argument was based on the fact of it being unconstitutional of the act of general assembly. In response, the district attorney on behalf of the state of Louisiana filled a demurrer. Upon the issuing of such demurrer, overruled the plea of the court be enjoined by a writ of prohibition from further proceeding in such case, the court will proceed to fine and sentence the petitioner to imprisonment and thus deprive him of his constitutionality of the act under which he was being persecuted. Upon the filing of this petition, an order was issuedUpon the respondent to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue, and be made perpetual and a further order that the record of the proceedings had the criminal cause be certified and transmitted to the Supreme Court. The first section of the statue enacts that all railway companied caring passengers in their coaches in their passenger train, or by dividing the passenger coaches by a partition so as to secure separate accommodation provided that this section shall not be construed to apply to street railroads. No Person or person shall be permitted to occupy seats in coach, other that the ones assigned to them on account of the race they belong to. The colored race, the said Plessy declined and refused, either by pleading or otherwise, to admit that he was in any sense or in any proprtion a color man. The case coming on for hearing before the Supreme Court, that court was of opinion that the law under which the prosecution has was constitution and denied the relief prayed for by the petitioner. Where Plessy asked for a writ of error from this court, which was allowed by the chief justice of the supreme court of Louisiana. The fact that he has an eig...
