Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1926-05-29
DODGING THE ISSUE.

s. without This position has been
emphasized by recent decision OF
the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case of Mrs. Curtis,
who purchased property in Wash.
ington, District OF Columbia which
IS directly under the supervision AMI
control of the United States Govern
mont and IN account of her color,
an injunction was obtained against
the present owner restraining the
granting and the issuing of the deed
% the same.
The reason stated was that an
agreement had been signed by pro-
rerty owners pledging themselves
not to sell property to colored
people. The appeal to the Supreme
Court followed and that tribunal has
handed down a decision that it is
without Jurisdiction II then the
Supreme Court was and is without
jurisdiction in reviewing the case,
certainly the lower court was with
out jurisdiction in issuing the in
junction.
1t is on ''all fours" with the con-
gresham, who drinks wet and in the
legislative halls votes dry. We have
no hesitation in saying that II the
owner of the property signed an
agreement not to sell to colored
pr orle then the owner should 1.-Two
NY to that agreement. But IL the
property passed into the hands of
another white owner. who did not
sign any such agreement and who
did not specifically agree to he bound
by any such agreement then the
transfer OF such property to colored
owner is legal in every sense of the
word.
The contention of the appellant,
however, was based upon the ground
tnat an unconstitutional agreement
made between property owners was
null and void. The contracting par
ties could not be expected to be-
sustained by the court in the en-
forcement of an unconstitutional
agreement.
So far as we are able to observe,
the decision of the Supreme Court
will not have the tendency to in
crease the respect for this august
tribunal, but rather to diminish it
for it proceeds to argue and to state
its position upon some of the ques-
tons raised, although it has just de-
clared that it is without jurisdiction
1t says:
The injunction had been secured
by residents of nearby houses on
the strength OF an agreement signel
10y all property owners in the block,
piedging against sales TO any Ole
not OF white blood.
Under the p.eadings i'll the pres
ent case, the only constitutional
question involved was that arising
under the assertions in the motions
to dismiss that the indenture or cove
nant which is the basis of the bill
Is void in that it is contrary to and
forbidden by the fifth thirteenth and
fourteenth amendments
This contention is entirely lacking
III substance or color of merit
The fifth amendment is a linita-
ton only upon the powers of the
general government and is not di-
rected against the action of individ-
uals.
The thirteenth amendment de-
slavery and Involuntary
seryitude that is, condition OF en-
forced compulsory service of one t.
the other, does not in other matters
protect the individuals rights of per-
sons of the Negro race
And the prohibitions of the four
teenth amendment have reference to
State action exclusively and not to
any action of private individuals. 1t
Is a State action of particular char
acter that is prohibited. Individual
invasion of individual rights is not
the subject matter of the amend
ment.
1T is obvious that none of these
amendments prohibited private fndi
vif:uals from entering into con-
tracts respecting the control and dis
position of their own property and,
there is no color whatever for the
contention that they rendered the
indenture void.
The claim that the agreement was
void because it was against public
policy does not involve constitution.
al question within. the meaning of
tie code provisions.
While it was further urge1 in
this court that the DEGREES of The
courts below in themselves y RTE
the defendants Of their libertv and
property without due process of law,
in VIC alton of the fifth and four
teenth amendments" the decision
concluded, this contention like
wise cannot serve as jur'sdic-
tional basis FOR the appeal The ap
peal must be and ia dismissed for
want of jurisdiction
This is equivalent to legalizing
lynching or in other words it does not
hold State or municipality respon-
Co.. h.