Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1917-11-06
RICHMOND CASES WILL
BE APPEALED At ONCE
Contests to Be Taken to Federal Su.
preme Court Following
Louisville Decision.
SOME POINTS OF DIFFERENCE

Case Before Supreme Court Involved
Ownership Of Property, While
Richmond Ordinance Applies Only
to Its Occupancy.
Following the decision Of the United
States Supreme Court yesterday. hold
ing unconstitutional the race SeGrc-
cation ordinance OF Louisville. ny.
counsel for two cases recently tried in
Richmond under similar ordinance.
which was held constitutional by the
Virginia Supreme, Court Of Appeals.
announced last night that appeals
to have tho Richmond measure NULL
fed on the same grounds. j,
While no statements could be OBJ
tanned last night from attorneys. be-
cause they had not read the complete
opinion Of the Supreme Court, and dill
not know what points had led that
booy TO arrive at its decision. IL WAS
believed In certain quarters that the
Richmond ordinance would no. he az
fected by the ruling of the United
States Supreme Court This conten-
ton was made by prominent attorneys.
because or the point upon which the
LOUISVILLE case was apparently decided.
Seemingly. the Louisville ease was
declared unconstitutional because Of
It's attempt to prevent the alienation
or property" and no such provision IS
contained in the Richmond ordinance.
since this point seems TO have been
given great consideration by the Fed
eral court, attorneys believe that the
segregation measure now in force I'm
this city VIII not come within the OPP
Grafton of the Supreme Courts onin'on.
LOUISVILLE CASE ONE
OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
The point upon which the Louisville
case went 10 the Federal court was a
question Of property ownership. Charles
II. Buchanan. the plaintiff in error.
contracted 10 sell certain. real estate
20 William Marley. the defendant in
error. Marley. n negro. required the
insertion of proviso in the contract
OF snle by which the agreement was
VOID unless he could obtain occupancy
OF the property. which would violate
the segregation ordinance
lie refused TO perform .he contract.
ana buchanan brought sui: against
MN. The case went through the low
er courts. and TO the Court of Appeals
or the State OF Kentucky. This court
held the segregation ordinance con-
stitutional and counsel then appealed
to the United States Supreme Court
which reversed the Kentucky appellate
court. 70 act otherwise. the court held
would be an attempt to prevent the
alienation OF the property in question
"a
legitimate exercise of the police power
OF the STATE. and Is ir direct viola
ton Of the Constitution
The Richmond city ordinance, under
which TWO cases were recently tried
ana convictions secured. has been held
constitutional by the Virginia Supreme
court OF Appeals. There Is no pro-
vision I'm the measure affecting the
ownership Of real estate. The ordfn
ance deals ent'rel.', 1t is assorted, with
occupancy. Negroes may own proper
~ In any block in which the seg.,ga
ton measure operates. but m.y not
move into that property unles, q ma
Jority OF the residents on tho blocl,
are negroes. The same rule applica
10 whites, each race ENJOYING cu;,al
privileges.
STATE SUPREME COURT DREW
DISTINCTION AS TO CITIZENSHIP
The Federal Supreme Court held that
the ordinance was unconstitutional be-
cause OF the provisions of the four
teenth amendment. The Virginia SUI
preme Court gave the same consider
alton to the cases in this State, hold
ing In the cases of Hopkins against
Richmond and Coleman against Ash
land which were both considered at
Inc same time. that the segregation
ordnance did not violate the pro-
visions OF the Constitution of the INIT.
cd States
In its opinion, the Virginia cour,
held:
The fourteenth amendment itself
draws sharp distinction between
citizen OF the United States and n citi-
zen OF the State. and classifcs the
privileges of citizens into those which
they have as citizens OF the United
states and those which they have as
citizens OF the State wherein they re-
sioe.A 1t forbids the abridging OF tho
privileges OF IL citizen of tie United
States. but does not forbid the state
from abridsing The privileges OF it's
own citizens. which are such as per-
tam TO him as member of society
and would be his il his State was moi
4 member CT the Union.
over these the States have the usua;
power belonging TO the government.
suo)ectNto tho proviso that they shall
not cen% to any person within their
jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws"
The two cases in Richmond were
those of Mary Hopkins and Ame5o
rom. me frst was that of negro,
VINO moved into white block on South
second Street, and the second that of
white man who moved into a negro
block on North Second Street. RotI,
were fined $500 IN the Police Court.
from Which an appeal to the Hastings
Court was no;cd.
Because Judge Richardson was Mayor
at the time the segregation ordinance
was passed By the Council. he did not
think 1t proper that he should preside
at the trial Of the case Judge Ernest
n. ."ehs sat in the Hastings Court.
and upheld the lower court. The cases
were then appealed to the Virginia S,,-
preme Court. which held the ordinance
constitutional. Judge Keith, president
Of the court. dissented.
Richmonds ordinance. was passed
IN April, 1911. Louisville patterned
IT'S measure after the one in this city.
ana II was adopted in 1914. while
,",s. ore mad taken similar action in
1913. Since practically the ga mo po;nt
was involved In all the cases Other
clties beside Louisville became parties