The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-11-06
I. 5. SUPREn NE COURT
DECIDES SEGREGATION
ORDINANCE INVALID
Louisville Test Case. on Which Rich
mond Law Hangs, Decid"
cd Adversely.
CITY ATTORNEY DECLINES
TO MAKE COMMENT NOW.
Moa See Text of Opinion Before MAX
fnx Slateznent--All CassS in Local
Courts for Year Held Up Pending
Decision.

FI kQE htIA1ARE f-NNrt -.
the negro segregation ordinance o. .
Louisville unconstitutional This case
has been pending in The supreme /
court for a considerable time. having
beNn argued the first TINS several
months ago, but, because oi the I'm
portance Of the litigation and the +A't
that there were only seven men on
the supreme bench at that tne, IT was
decided that fut! bench Should make
the decision. The court hel& that the
ordinance was Invalid because It was
contrary to citizens riShtS laid down
IN the fourteenth anne ndmen- OF the
federal Constitution !
This decision affects Richmond,
Baltimore, Atlanta. -. L28S ana SeN-
eral other Southern cities that have
passed similar ordinances. NhetheF
or not the wording of the Richmond
ordinance is different from that 81 (
the tested case, and what effect the
decision will have on Richmond, Will
not be known until the text OF the
opinion OF the supreme court mas been
received here
Councilman A L. Vonderlehr intro
duced the segregation ordinance In th9
Richmond council some six years ago
1t provided that there should be 30
encroachment by the whites upon the
coiored sections OF the city ana thHt
the coiored population should mol
move into those sections Of the city
in which the whites were predomi-
nant II was merely question OF
numbers II the whites were In he
majority on the block an owner couId
not transfer his property 10 co4oItp
man. and vice versa.
Richmond was the first large CITY
in the South to adopt segregation
ordinance, TO be followed soon by Bal
ttmere. Atlanta. Louisville, 81. LOUIS
and several other cities
In this state the validity ot the
ordinance was questioned several
years ago ON the ground that II was
unconstitutional but il was upheld
by the state supreme court 10y vote
OF four TO one. Judge Keith, Who was
at that time president OF the court
dissented, but gave no dissenting
opinion. In Georgia the state su-
preme court also held as constiiu-
tsonai the ordinance adopted 10y AT
1anta The courts OF MARYLAND and
Kentucky. followed rapidly with SINH
lar decisions.
The court Of North Carolina only
recently reversed former decision
of unconstltutionalty Of this ordi-
nance, declaring that WIS in hor-
mony with the law OF the land.
Upheld by Kentucky Court.
In the Kentucky courts. including
the court of last resort, ali affirmed
that the ordinance OF Louisville. was
of that state an appeal WAS taken 20
the supreme court of the United
states. AT the arst hearing there
were two vacancies ON the supreme
bench. and. after full argument and
consideration OF that tribunal that
lasted for several months, II was I'll
0ered that a reargument 0f the case
he set for last March to "a full tri-
bunal when IL was reareued orally by
the counsel In the Louisville ca&e.
In this case. by leave Of the court.
a brief or note Of argument was
allowed to be filed by City Attorney
II. n. Pollard. OF Richmond designed
10 help the cause OF Louisville, he
cause the decision in the Louisville
ease similarly affected Richmond.
Mr.. Pollard stated last night that II
would be impossible FOR him to give
statement in regard TO the probable
effect on the legal status o. the nu-
merous cases still pending in the
Richmond courts until he had seen
and read the opinion Of the supreme
-curt
All Gases for Year Continued.
up to date the ordinance is Doing
enforced" by the police Of I,tch =
rncnd. in that whenever attention IS
called TO violations or reports are
made. the persons reported are sum
rnoned to police court. and up 10 re-
Gently were flned in accordance with
the provisions Of the ordinance and
<iirected 70 abide by the restrictions
surrounding the LaW-1 In all early
cases appeals were noted. Cases are
now pending in the courts in which
Lawyers Isaac Diggs, Alfred E Cohen
and James Pollard. the latter colored
Hre interested Within the past year
all cases reported 10 police court have
been continued by Justice crutchfeld,
pending a decision from the supreme
rourt
Judge Days Opinion
In rendering the opinion. Jsstsoe
Day said:
laws In the exercise Of the police
power having for their object the pro-
motion OF the public health, safety and
welfare is very broad and has been
affirmed in numerous aud recent de-
cisiors of this court. But It is equally
well established that the police power.
broad as II is. cannot Justify the pas
sage of law or ordinance which runs
counter 10 the LIMITATIONS Of the fed
efsi constitution.
That there exists a. serious and diff
fscuit problem arising from a feelins
Of race hostility which the Law ia
poweriess to contend and TO which Il
must give a measure Of confederation,
may be freely adm i|ted. But IT'S solu-
ton cannot be promoted by deprlving
citizens Of their constitutional rights
and privileges.
LAS we have seen. this court has
held laws valid which separated the
races on the basis Of equal hccoHmo o.
cations In public conveyance and
courts OF high authority have held en-
actments lawful which provide for
separation In the public schools Of
white and co!ored pupils where equal
L privileges are given.
But in view Of the rights secured
( by the fourteenth amendment 20 the
federal constitution such legislation
Snaas& have its limitations and cannot
be sust aimed where the exercise of au =
khortty exceeds the restraints Of the
eonstitution- We think these liTuita-
ttons are exceeded In laws and ordi-
nances of the character now before us.
1t il the purpose OF sucb enact
ments. and Il 10 frankly avowed IL VIII
be their ultimate effect. to Require by
law, at least in residential districts.
khe compulsory separation OF the races
5 on account of color. such action is said
81 he