The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-02-19
THINKS CITY GAN
SEPARATE RACES
City Attorney Pollard Gives
Opinion on Vonderlehr Race
Segregation Act.
MAKES NO DISCRIMINATION
Opinions Of Supreme Court OF
United States Quoted to
Sustain His Position.
MAKES NO DISCRIMINATION

d WilltGn opinion rendered yes
terday TO Councilman ~ l.. Eonderlehr.
member of the Common Council from
Henry Ward, City Attorney Pollard
nolds that the roposed race sesrcsa-
ton ordinance is sound and constitu-
tionhl. h City Attorney expresses
the belief that the ordinance, if enact
ca, VIII be upheld in the courts and
declared to be not to Federal
or state Constitutions. Many decisions
OF tne supreme Court of the United
states are quoted to support his view.
csDeclal attention being called TO he
iact that the measure applies equally
70 white and colo;ed people, forbildinc.
white people from living in u negro sec
ton. as we'll as f~orbidding coiored pco .
pc from wing on white streets. Nor
uoes the proposed ordinance Interfere
Win present contracts or affect ,he
location OF residences made previous
70 me passage OF the ordinance. or
cohtrGi TIE residence OF people engaged
IN service or as employees. thus avoid.
ing interference with vested rights auo
making no discrimination between
"hite and colorcd people IN its appIi.
cation, and therefore cannot be said
10 discriminate against colored people
L " &C GO.OI# o .OlGIlcHS
condition Of servitude."
Text of Opinion.
me tut text OF the opinion follows.
referring to your request 10 in
form you whether or not the Gomez,
81 the city OF Richmond. under the
Smarter OF the city and the gcneraI
avs OF the State for the government
2 cues and towns, have authority to
ADOPT the ordinance entitled An oral
nance to secure for white and col
olsd people, respectively, the separata
iocaiion OF residences for each race
ana If so adopted would the san,o ~.
constitutional. I have TO say:
4. While there mas be some 6ouht
. ; 20 whether the powers conferred
upoh tle Council OF the city Of Rich
hlond under It's charter and the genera,
laws for the government of cities and
.o"lS is Suiifcient to justify the lesis-
iatlon proposed, by reason OF tho Vol
recosnized principle Of municipal law.
mat the Councils of the cities and
Towns OF the Stale have no powers
OF a legislative character eycon: tbos,
expressly conferred, or sucb ,nu.r
necessarily flow from powers ma, ~
expressly conferred, Vet am ar o,i,.
ION mat the necessary power IS fn,n,
IN section 10 OF the city charter vvhict
PROVIDES That the Council of the III,
o. inchmond shall he authorized ~
enact suitable ordinances TO secure and
2roinotc the general welfare Of no ~
nhbitants OF the city, by then, IA ,.a
proper for the safety. health n.,oa
gcod order and morals OF ihe con.
muhlty. !, therefore, hold That ~
ordinance In question:. IL passed. wo,,,d
DC BY the courts held to nave been
enacted by the Council In pursuance
o. salo provision. and intended to pro-
mote the pcaco and good morals ~
the community, and his being so. thny
VIII Mold that there is ample now.,
in the Council to enact II
Certain II Is Wild.
On the question of the constitn.
nohality Of the ordinance, fee, COW
ndeht mat it would be upheld In the
soui'S ana declared TO be not repug-
%tutionS. NoHSii
IN the latest decision rendered III
me supreme Court of the United
! states decided January s. 1910. an
me extent Of the police power Of a
cry, Mr. Justice Holmes, delivering thn
opinion OF the court, said:
IT may be said in a genera way
nat the police power extends TO all
the great public nceds. It may be mi,
iorth in aid of what is sanctioned by
usuage, or held by the prevailing moral.
itS or strong and ~prepondcrant opln.
ION to be greatly and immediately
necessary 70 the public welfare (Ad.
vance sheets Supreme Court Reports
10: .. octobar term. 1910. p. 18S-ofl-
ciai report, 2lS U. 3. 30o).
The proposed ordnance is in the
] me OF legislation recognized as valid
by the Supreme Courts OF MANY States
paving for its object the separation
OF the races, while using public con-
veyances and While attending public
/ schools.
The rnost recent case bearing al
rectly on the subject is Berea College
vs.. Commonwealth of Kentucky H2a
Ky. 200; S. c. % S. w. r. $3.50 where
me Supreme Court of Kentucky held
that a prohibition against teaching
white and negro pupils in the sama
institution does not deny due process
OF law, or otherwise violate the Fed
eral Constitution. This decision Oh
appeal the Supreme Court OF the
United States ell U. S. 49, upheld.
the court clearly indicating that legis-
i lation looking TO The segregation Of
the races which does not discriminate
and upheld by the State courts, will
not be anntiiled by that court.
Looking Up Other Cnses.
reference might be made to many
other analogous cases, decided in the
several States upholding statutes
wlich prohibit the intcrnninsiins oi
the races in public schools. not one Of
which decisions. as far as I have been
able 10 find. has been reversed In tho
supreme Court of the United states.
Among these is the leading case OF
Cumming VS.. County School Board Of
Education OF Richmond county, Ga
Gf5 u. 5. $3.50, where the opinion OF
the court was delivered by Mr.. Justice
Harlan. It was there said:
1--WE may add that while all adj
init that the benefits and burdens %
public taxation must be shared BY
citizens without discrimination against
any class on account OF their race.
the education of the people In schools
maintained by State taxation is n mat
ter belonging to the respective States
and any interference on tho part OF
Federal authority with the manage
ment OF such schools cannot be jus
tilted except in the case OF n clear and