# Lopez v. Seccombe

Lopez v. Seccombe. 71 F. Supp. 769. 1, US District Court for the Southern District of California, 1944, was a 1944 court case within the city and county of San Bernardino about whether Mexican Americans were able to use the city's public pool at any time despite the cities restricted limits. It is one of the "first successful judicial challenges to racial segregation". It is a case regarding the discrimination Mexican Americans had faced in southern California in the 20th century.

## Mexican immigration

Mexican migration to the Inland Empire expanded during the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920s). During World War I, Mexican immigrants were recruited to work on ranches for periods at a time, but they were not welcomed to stay. Many Mexicans who had come to work were exploited and if they ever did anything against their employers, they were easily deported. The Immigration Act of 1921 passed numerical quotes on immigration, which allowed only 3 percent of residents of the same nationality to be recorded on the Census. The Immigration Act of 1924 reduced it to 2 percent. There were debates over immigration and many argued that seasonal migration was essential to the success of U.S. agriculture.
Many immigrants that came to the United States would reside in California, Arizona and Texas, with the largest concentration shifting from Texas to California through the 1920s. Most immigrants would settle in the inland part of Southern California counties of San Bernardino and Riverside. Many Mexican families would settle in cities such as Claremont, Corona, Pomona, Redlands, and Upland. By 1928, more than 40 percent of all inland births were of Mexican descent. In 1929, the Central Chamber of Commerce wanted to figure out how needed were Mexican laborers. Many Mexicans that were part of these communities, owned or leased their homes and established familial ties to the area. Many were no longer moving back and forth to Mexico and the US, they were local.

## Segregation

Discrimination against Mexicans in public facilities represented a form of prejudice. The substandard treatment prompted some individuals to reject being treated as second-class citizens. One example was when a Mexican couple wanted to be seated in the center section of a movie theatre but were asked to move simply because they were Mexican. They were given the option to sit at the very front, side aisles, or the balcony, which were known to be the least comfortable. When the male Mexican American offered to pay the difference for the better seats, he was denied. Many other businesses displayed "Whites only" signs, not only leaving out Mexicans, but many other ethnicities.
Latinos were also forced to attend "Mexican schools" established in California cities at the time. Mexican Americans were not allowed to attend schools in their district if they were designated for white students. They had to travel longer distances to attend a Mexican school. Many white education leaders argued that they were separated because Mexicans had to be taught in Spanish, but the prohibition from attending Anglo schools was unconstitutional.
Another act of discrimination was the use of public swimming pools. Mexican Americans were only allowed to swim on one day out of the week before the pool was supposed to be cleaned. This form of segregation was a constitutional violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments . The Fifth Amendment states that the Federal Government may not deprive individuals of "life, liberty and property". The Fourteenth Amendment offers protection against any acts of discrimination and prohibits states from violating any individual's equal rights. Mexicans were also taxpayers and were entitled to the rights of the same public facilities. During the 1940s, there were other publicized cases about swimming pools in communities such as Riverside, Colton, and San Bernardino. Riverside agreed to desegregate after being confronted by Mexican-American leaders. In San Bernardino and Colton, they suggested that Mexicans only swim in their own neighborhood pools but the only pools in the Mexican barrio were private pools. This would amount to discrimination in public swimming pools once again with no change.

## Background on Lopez

Ignacio L. Lopez was a Mexican American civil rights activist. He had roots from Mexico but moved to America at a young age and was not afraid to speak up against the discrimination he had experienced. He was born in 1907 in Guadalajara, Mexico but became a naturalized citizen of the US. He had grown up in the San Gabriel Valley and attended high school at Pomona High School in Pomona and went on to further his secondary education at Chaffey College in Ontario and then at Pomona College in Claremont. Further on in life he became a civil rights activist for Mexican Americans and went on to author the newspaper El Espectador. His main motive with publishing the newspaper was to "support every action to combat this insult to our racial dignity, but we need that support of Every One of our readers." He further advocated for Mexican Americans to not tolerate discrimination and even openly stop purchasing goods from known prejudiced stores. He believed “they did not have to stand by passively and accept prejudice in public places.” He was the main plaintiff for the case of the San Bernardino public pool due to being a popular figure at the time for civil rights and leaves a lasting legacy upon the Mexican American community in southern California.

## Background on Seccombe

William Carpenter Seccombe was born in Nova Scotia, Canada, in 1873 and moved to San Bernardino with his family in 1883. He pursued a career in pharmacy, working for various drug stores before establishing his own pharmacy business with partners. Seccombe's civic engagement extended to serving in the California National Guard and later on the San Bernardino Board of Education, where he played a role in the development of polytechnic high school campuses.
Seccombe served as mayor of San Bernardino from May 12, 1941, to May 11, 1947. When the Mexican American Defense Committee challenged the city's policies on segregation, the city council, including Seccombe, rejected the calls for integration, leading to a class action lawsuit filed against Seccombe and the city council.

## Details

In June, San Bernardino entered one its hottest summers. The Perris Hill Plunge was a public pool located in a white neighborhood in San Bernardino. Due to the incredible heat, the pool was a pastime for local residents in the area, they were expecting at least 4000 swimmers each day. Unfortunately, for Mike Valles and Bobby Daste (Latino teenagers), they were unable to enjoy this hot summer day together. Upon arriving to the pool, the two were asked if they were Mexican.
Mike stated "Yes I am" and he was denied entry to the pool. The worker exclaimed, "Today is not your day to swim, you need to come back on your day to swim." Mexicans were only allowed to swim on the day before cleaning day. Bobby said he was Cuban and was granted entry, proving that the discrimination was specifically against Mexicans rather than about skin color. Mike went home that day and complained to his parents. Gonzalo, his father, grew angry of the constant discrimination that he and other of Mexicans had been experiencing. Gonzalo decided to organize a community meeting in order to support desegregation of the Perris Hill Plunge. Many people who supported the cause showed up and advocated for the recreational facilities on the west side. Many also spoke against it. When Gonzolo spoke, many supported him and created the Mexican American Defense Committee (MADC). Mexican-American leaders, including Ignacio Lopez, Father Jose Nunes, Gonzolo Valles, Miguel Ciriza, Eligio Romo, and Eugenio Nogueras, publisher of El sol de San Bernardino went to federal court in 1943, after many failed attempts with the city council to come up with an agreement, with the goal of using San Bernardino as a test case to force desegregation of public swimming pools.

## Aftermath

With the help of a Jewish lawyer, David C Marcus, the main argument of the plaintiffs was that Mexican Americans were entitled to use public swimming pools under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The judge ruled that the respondents were ultimately conducting in an illegal matter. Since the plaintiffs were citizens of the United States, they were guaranteed the same rights and privileges as white people even though they themselves were Mexican. The "petitioners are entitled to such equal accommodations, advantages, privileges, equal rights and treatment with other persons as citizens of the United States, in the use and enjoyment of the facilities of said park and playground." The judge ruled that Mexicans are able to use the facilities as well as at the same time as the whites as long as it was open to everyone. If anyone, were to deny Mexicans entry to the pool, that is declared unconstitutional and ultimately illegal. This case would be used in the Mendez v. Westminster case which would ultimately rule against the segregation in schools in the neighboring Orange County.