The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-09-18
OPINION UPHQLDS
SEGREGATION LAW
CONTINUED From First Page

ULQnLQHHUlV LAW
tcontinuea From First Pasvo
Fort and preserve public peace and
good order.
: NO case Of this precise character
has been adjudicated," says Judge
Chichester, and yet there are many
analogous cases in which the validity
OF legislation looking 10 the separation
Of the races has been vinGicated upon
this very ground of public policy"
Judge Chichester notes particularly
the prospective character Of the ordi-
nance, and the fact that II does not
disturb existing conditions. It's pro-
visions apply only 10 persons taking
residence after the ordinance became
law
Does Not Discriminate
x could make no difference whether
an offender agsins; The ordinance were
white Or co!ored" the Judge declares.
N either event the same penalty is
prescribed e! its violation. u can be
truly said 10 operate on all persons
and property under the same circum-
stances and conditions and 10 affect
all persons similarly situated Within
he sphere q lis operation"
The opinion quotes from 2 court lul-
ing Q. The Louisiana statute providing
--- Scs'E. - w aE carriages Tor the
white snc coior-d races The cases are
almost analogous, both involving the
SEPARATION Of ,ae races. IL that case
iae cour, held that The Louisiana Law
vas reasonable exercise OF the police
power To quote further
Gagged ny this standard We cannot
say tha- : law which authorizes or
even requires the separation OF the two
races IL public conveyances Is unrea-
49, ~ sc IN
tenth Amendment than the acts Of
Congress requiring separate schools
=. co!Crec chilGren In the District Of
Columbia, the constitutional!ty Of
~nich does not seem 20 have been ques-
i.o.ed o. The corresponding acts Of
STATE legislatures.
We consider the fallacy OF the plain
~ argument 10 consist in the as
s1r. pt:Du that The iuforced separation
9: The t.ro races stamps the colored
man with a badge OF inferiority. II it
BIZ %. - is not ~ reason OF anything
.5ual in the act, but solely because the
co!ored man chooses 10 put that con
st-uct!on upon IL
sepnrateness Not Inferiority.
The theory upon which legislation
Ike the ashland ordinance is based.
according 70 Judge Chichester. is well
ststed in 2 Pennsylvania court ruling
On the legality OF a separate law on
PUBLIC conveyances. which reads. in
pat:
TO. assert separatenezs is not to de-
clare !nferiority in either race. II is
not 70 declare one slave and the
o,he: e freeman. That would be 10
c-aw the illogical sequence OF infe
r!ority from difference only. II Is .im-
ply 10 ray that. following the order of
Divine Providence. human authority
ought not 70 ompel these widely sep
:: u
~ each 70 he free from social contact
IL Z. clear as To be free from inter
marriage The former may be lesA re-
pulsiye ~ z condition. but not less en-
,itled 20 protection ar u right"
Town Acted Within Right.
The Town Council Of ashland. Judge
Cn!c.ester holds, had fun authority TO
Dass The ordinance IL the exercise Of
oo!ice powers dedicated impliedly by
section 1923 u: the Code Of 1904, which
dsclares that the cities and towns Of
inc Commonwealth. among other pow
- "pf.Aeryn the peace and good order
W!thin their linitE
The ..2regat!on law NAE passed by
tie trun u Ashland on September II.
1911 IN March. 1872. the General AS
hsr0bly enacted law empowering the
'citle> ana towns III the state TO pass
pfdiuarcsg providing FOR the separa-
ton u! the races Within their limits.
aga declaring that the residence OF
~n!te ana colored citiZenB In proximity
- Dre another endangered the public
ircfals. public health and public order.
men the Legislature declared that
rDndit!Da existed In the carly part
~ 1912 rhich endangered the public
ptcHr.' ~ would seem 10 follow" saya
judKe CAlchester. that The town Of
Akb!aHp. Ia the latter part OF 1911.
""A ac'lHg clearly within It's powers.
"hen - Indcrtooh 10 prcEerve good
order Wiiiin It's conGner. by the pas
sage - mir ordinance"
JyGgc chlchcrter holds further that
-" rtGlnaHcs IL Il reasonable exnrcins
T ~ irt Ip!ics power. and that In pass
ing ~ ths town of Ashland did not
IA ;i"laiicu u Law. delegate To resi-
prH'E rf H., owners on any street or
t'pck. 81 aithOfitY which IL its own
municipal attribute
HenIsfe1