The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1914-04-14
SEGREGATION NOT
ALLOWED BY LAW

HlIO IL III Inv
Decision Of the Supreme Court OF
North Carolina as to the Winston
Ordinance.
There is very general interest
throughout the State, in the disposal
OF the race segregation ordinance OF
Winston. The North Carolina Su-
preme court held it was not adopted
under the authority Of law and held
it invalid. This was the unanimous
decision of the court, and the opinion
written by Chief Justice Clark, fol
lows:
Race Segregation Case.
On 5 July, 1912, the board of al
dermen of Winston, N. c., adopted
an ordinance which made it unlaw-
full for any colored person to occupy
as a residence any house upon any
street or alley between two adjacent
streets on which a greater number
OF houses were occupied as residences
by white people than were occupied
as residences by colOred people. An
| other section of the ordinance made
a similar restriction against white
people occupying as residences houses
on streets where there were more
houses occupied by colored residents
than by whites. In 1913. the defen-
dant, William Darnell, a colored man,
moved his family into a house on
Highland avenue to occupy 1t as a
residence. At that time in the other
houses OF that street and block there
were more white families thar col
ored. The defendant was tried in the
municipal court for violating this or
dinance and being found guilty, he
was fined n appealed to this court.
The only authority which the board
Of aldermen claim for the passage of
this ordinance is section Al Of the
city charter, which provides that the
aldermen may pass any ordinance
which they may deem wise n prop
err for the good order, good govern
ment OF general welfare Of the city,
provided it does not cOntravene the
laws and Constitution of the State
In l Dillon 1 Mum. Corp. sec. SO
which is copied and approved in State
v. Weber LOT N. c.. 962; 20 Am. St
$40, it is said: 1T is a general and
undisputed proposition Of law hat 9
municipal corporation possesses an6
can exercise the following powers anc
} no others; l. Those granted in ex-
press words; 2. Those necessarily
or fairly implied; 3. Those essentia
TO the declared objects and purposes
OF the cOrpOratiOn-not simply con
{ venient, but Indispensable. Any fair
? reasonable doubt, concerning the ex
erciSe is resolved by the courts agains
the corporation, and the power is de
MED" In State V. Thomas the cour
=, reiterated this doctrine and quotet
with approval 1 Dillon Mum. Corp
sec. 325 as follows: AN ordinanc
e can not legally be made which con
q traveneS a common right, unless tn
9 power to do SO be plainly conferre,
, by a valid and competent legislativ
grant In State V. Dannenburg Is
e n. c., 500 it was held "Municipa
Corporations can only exercise sue
q | nIIO MA 1o 49, ~ AhA;
charters, and all fair and REASONABLE
doubts to whether sue powers hav
II been conferred are resolved by tn
C courts against their bein. exercised.
The brief for the State frankly says
y 1t is not claimed that the city {
Winston had any express grant {
power to pass u segregation ord
" nance. To uphold the validity {
er such an ordinance, therefore it mu!
be shown that the passage of it VIZ
~ a reasonable exercise of the polio
lie power" Rev. 1928 is broader eve
1t than this provision Of the charter, f.
~ 1T gives town commissioners 'powt
I'd to make ordinances. rules and reg,
III iatlOnS for the better
Id the town not Inconsistent with tn
chapter and the law Of the land,
t. they may deem necessary" and
a. enforce them by suitable penaltie
u 1t is held under his last section tn;
Is such ordinances and bylaws must
r i'll harmony with the general Laws
ey the State, Washington V. Hammer
10 N. g, 33; State ". Langston IS
e S74.
er. We do not think that the authori
NJ conferred by sec. "A of the chart
We to enact ordinances for the "gener
IN welfare Of the city" canjustly be co
to strued as intended by the Legislatu
A. to authorize an ordinance Of this XII