The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-09-18
OPINION UPHOLDS
SEGREGATION LAW
Judge Chichester Rules Ordi-
nance Does Not Violate
Constitution.
SUPPORTS RICHMOND ACT
Ruling Bears Directly on Cases
Now Pending in Hust-
ings Court.

Richmonds segregation ordinance,
against which six actions are pending
| ir the Hastings Court, wins an aole
ally in Judge r. II. l.. Chichester, OF
the Hanover County Circuit Court. who
that the Ashland segregation law,
| which is almost identical with the To-
! cal ordinance, is valid and not in con-
llict with the Constitution OF the United
States.
| "-As far as I know, this is the first
ruling OF its kind In Virginia." sad
city Attorney Pollard yesterday 1T
J is OF the utmost Importance, and has n
, direct bearing on the cases now pend :
iLg against the city in the Hustings
Court. The Ashland ordinance is prac-
ticallS copy OF the Richmond act, an.l
d court ruling on either one applies
with the same force to the other"
Assistant City Attorney George
Wayne Anderson, who is Immediately
in charge of the citys case in the ac-
tons brought against the inforcement
OF the segregation law. regarded the
opinion as timely, and said that IL
Will afford Ashland and Richmond an
opportunity to get together in carry :
ing the law through the State Supreme
Court of Appeals, should the matter
be pursued further.
Hinges on ConstftutionnIity.
The validity OF the Ashland and
Richmond ordinance hinges on their
constitutionality The act makes il
unlawful for a white person to occupy
as resident any house upon any street
or alley between two adjacent streets
on which a greater number Of houses
are occupied as residences by colored
people than arc occupied as residences
by white people. The same restriction
is made as to occupation as a residence
by colored person of a house located
on block upon which a majority of
the houses are occupied by white peo-
pie
The law Is prospective and bears only
upon residence taken after it's passage
The Richmond ordinance became law
OH April 10. 1911. 1t does not disturb
the occupancy of any property in con-
hlct with its provisions. if such occu-
pancy existed prior to its enactment
In Ashland the ordinance was at
tackled by John Coleman. colored man
who had bought and occupied n house
lin block where the majority Gt the
residents were white. !!c was ar
rested. found guilty and fined by the
Mayor. Coleman appealed to the Cir
cult Court. where Judge Chichester
held that the ordinance was valid. and
supported the action of the Mayor.
Class Discrimination Charged
The chief charge brought against
the law by Coleman's counsel was that
1t was class legislation. and that in
discriminating against persons on tho
basis CT their color. it violates the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Consti-
tuition. The first section OF this
amendment reads:
"All persons born or naturalized in
the United states, and subject to the
Jurisdiction thereof. are citizens OF the
United states and of the state wherein
they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or mmunities of the
citizens of the United States; nor shall
liberty or property without due process
OF law; nor deny to any person within
its Jurisdiction the legal protection of
the laws"
The third part OF this clause pro-
hibits the state from denying to any
person within it's jurisdiction the equal
protection OF the laws, and 1t Is on
this point that most If not all, OF the
cases have turned, which involve So
called discriminatory legislation as re-
spects the races.
state Has Police Power.
Tho ordinance Is regarded as valid
by Judge Chichester on tho ground
that the Constitution Is not Violated
since no requirement. Is imposed Oh
the colored race that is not likewise
demanded of the white. and because tho
State has the right to legalze the sep
aration OF the races In the exercise
Of Its police, powers to. promote COM
(Continued on Second povaI