Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1915-03-27
REPLY BRIEF FOR THE CITY OF
RICHMOND
ln The Case ofMary s. Hopkins, ct ais. vs..
CITY Of Richmond.

Richmond. I. /. 4.
dinance In question is aimed at the
negro race although they are I'M
d able to point to a single sentence or
Its provisions which In the least JUS
titles that superstition L >sS{ s 4
In the case Of Susie Brown; WI ].
3 H. Bell Co.. LAG Iowa SO, IS. C. 427,
y Il. +. AZ IN. 81, %4O7, b merchant
4. leased spaces In q pure food show
I for q demonstration purposes, $40 at
& which he permitted patrons of the,
show to sample their wares, and who
= Is in no way interested in the maD>
agement Of the show, or the profits
therein, does net in refusing to serve
negroes at q booth, violate the stat
\ ute emitting all persons to full and
equal enjoyment Of the privileges Of
inns, etc. Deemer, b., speaking OF
race discrimination, uses the fol-
lowing languages: .$s>3j .,,sS 4. s'$
Is true that plaintiff was in
iVited with white people to the food
show, but there was no guaranty
that she would be treated alike by,
j the concessioners who had souvenirs
( to give away, or who were advertis-
ing Their goods for future trade pur-
poses. 1t rested solely with defend
ants as to whom they would serve,
and the courts should not undertake
to control such matters. The action
is not for defamation, but is planted.
5 squarely on the civil rights act; and
IF there be no ground Of recovetyt
hereunder, plaintiffs action must:
/, fail. There can be no doubt that plain
\ zoe knI 81 Ma ~.
Of those social humiliations which
I the law does not: undertake to pro.
tect. 1t Is such as is likely to behalf
any race or any kind or condition OF
men, Our social distinctions are ar
I; bitrary and sometimes extremely ex-
asperating, but the law has no rem
edy for them" },}, +. Il /,
l&5S In State y, Gurry,#I21 Nd. 534,
S..%C.#47 l.. r. a. IN 81 1887, the
: court passing upon an ordinance as
<hereinbefore stated, much like the
one under consideration here, and
holding that no unconstitutional dis
examination between the races occur
red IN prohibiting white end colored
4 persona from moving into q block oc-
i cupied exclusively by members = or,
] the other race, yet held that ali. or
dinauce which prohibits q white or
coiored owner Of property In block
wholly occupied by members OF the
other race from moving into It, Is
i such an unreasonable Interference
with vested property rights that 1t
i cannot be presumed that that power
ito pass it was conferred upon the
municipality by the general welfare
clause Of its charter. used the follow
ing language a
1 Naturally at times, the exercise
of this power limits to some extent,
\ the enjoyment Of the Fundamental
rights, but il the 4 restraints arc,
deemed by the SlaWmaktng body nee
! essary for the general welfare, and
8 are not so arbitrary AZ to be palpas
Oily and aiunmistak a bly, III /! excess, or
any reaso nable}} y exercise OF the au-s
thority 3 conf erred, u the courts will
not interfere, for the llosal authofi:,
ties are primnrily tho COS &uf tho
necessity Of h such eglslation b And
$althoug 9Th i curtis ma ID isagree as to-
4 the 3$pfoprte OF the egislation, yy.un--
less 1t plainl y, \: and beyond all dues;
ton, exceeds the powers there should
s{be mo 1ud loial interferep Getting
caaes.) II ( 81 ysli
4: I'll, then, this power Is inherent
lii every State for the preservation OF
Its general welfare, Is the ordinance.
In Question an unreasonable exerc(se
Iof 1t, and are it's provisions SO arbi-,
! trary and oppressive that they
amount to the invasion OF 4 persons
constitutional rights i? yI.5@.
%s} ( ''As we have seen the ayoWed OBJ
ject Of the ordinance Is to preserve
peace, prevent conflict and ill-feoi,.
f,nr ,of I,<, fp,< S~on 'soY, n