Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1917-11-17

different localities by tho same in
corporated institution, prohibited
their attendance at the same place,
and In this court, the Judgment of
the Court of Appeals of Kentucky
was affirmed solely upon the re-
served authority of the Legislature
of Kentucky to alter, amend, or re-
peal charters Of it's own corpora
tions, and the question here in,
volved was neither discussed nor
decided.
In Cary v. City of Atlanta, 143
Georgia, 1872, the Supreme Court OF
Georgia, holding an ordinance, SIM
ilar In priciple to the one herein in
Volved, to be invalid, dealt with
Plessy v. Ferguson and the Berea
College Case, in language so appo-
site that we quote portion Of it:
EQUAL SEPARATE PRIVILEGES.
In each Instance the complaining
person was afforded the opportunity
to ride, or to attend institutions OF
learning, or afforded the thing OF
whatever nature to which, In the
particular case, he was entitled. The
most that was done was to require
him. as member Of class to con-
form with reasonable rules In regard
to the separation of the races. In
none Of them was he denied tho
right to use, control, or dispose Of
his property, as in this case. Prop
erty of person, whether as q men,
per OF class or as an individual,
cannot be taken without due pro-
cess OF law. In the recent case Of
| McCabe v. Atchson, cts, Ry. Co.,
235 U. S. 151, where the Court had
under consideration statute which
allowed railroad companies to fur
msh dining-cars for white people
and to refuse to furnish dining-cars
altogether for colored persons, this
language was used in reference to
the contentious of the attorney gem
eral; This argument with respect
TO volume of traffic, seems to us to
be without merit. 1t makes the con-
stitutional right depend upon the num-
Der OF persons who may be discrinli-
mated against, whereas the essence
or the constitutional right Is that
1t Is personal one Il
| DESTROYED THE RIGHT,
"fhc effect of the ordinance under
consideration was not merely to
regulate business or the like, but
was to destroy the right of the in
a'Vioual to acquire, enjoy and dis
pose or his property. Being of this
character, 1t was void as being OBJ
posed to the due process clause Of
the Constitution"
III nat there exists serious and
:,a'cu!I problem arising from q feel
Ing OF race hostility which the law
10 10 po"erlcss to control. and to which
1T must give measure of consiIor.
alton, may be freely admitted. But
It's solution cannot be promoted by
aeprlving citizens OF their constitu-
tiopal rights and privileges.
NOT SEGREGATION
BUT CONFIsCATION.
L. AS we have seen, this Court has
held laws valid which separated INA
| races on the basis of equal acccm-
modations in public& conyeyances
lana courts Of high authority have
heia enactments lawfw&A"hich pro-
| Yide for senaration Q. public
Ssphnnla ut, white u. 49,. 81. ,,,;nj;S.
where equal privileges are given.
! put IN view OF the rights secured
'oultceHtn Amen0ment to
the Federal Constitution, such Iegis-
lation must have its limitations. and
cannot be sustained where the exer-
else OF authority exceeds the re-
straints Of the Constitution. We
think these limitations are exceeded
IN laws and ordinances of the char
acter now before us.
1 III is the purpose of such enact
ments. and, it is frankly avowed It
VIII be their ultimate effect, to re-
quire. by law, at least in residen-
tial districts the compulsory separa-
tlon OF the races on account Of color.
Such action Is said to be essential
TO the maintenance of the purity of
the races, although it Is to be noted
IN the ordinance under consideration
mat the employment of colored SER
wants In white families Is permitted.
and nearby residences Of colored per-
sons, not coming within the block
as defined in the ordinance, are not
prohibited.
NOT AMALGAMATION ISSUE.
) The case presented does not dea,
with an attempt to prohibit the
inauguration of the races. The
right which the ordinance annulled
was the civil right of white man
to dispose of his property If he saw
ut to do SO to a person Of color, and
OF colored person to make such a
disposition to white person.
1t is urged that this proposed
segregation will promote the public
peace by preventing race conflict.
Desirable as this is, and important
as Is the preservation Of the pub
lie peace, this aim cannot be accom-
plished by laws or ordinances which
deny rights created, or protected by
the Federal Constitution.
1t Is said that such acquisition by
colored persons deprcciate property