Evening star., 1926-05-24
RIGHT TO RESTRICT
COLORED PROPERTY
OWNERS IS UPHELD


association, carried the appeal direct
to the Supreme Court of the land.
Holds Rights Not Violated.
In refusing to overthrow the in
junction the Supreme Court held that
none of the rights Of the appellants
had been violated.
"Under the pleadings in the present
case" the Supreme Court said, "the
only Constitutional question involved
was that arising under the assertions
in the motions to dismiS that the in
denture or covenant which is the
basis of the bill is void in that it is
contrary to and forbidden by the fifth.
thirteenth and fourteenth amend
mentS.
This contention is entirely lacking
in substance or color of merit.
Amendment Does Not Apply.
1.-The fifth amendment is a 1imita.
ton only upon the powers Of the gen.
eral Government and is not directed
against the action of individuals.
THE thirteenth amendnent, de-
nouncing slavery and involuntary
servitude-that is. condition of en-
forced compulsory service of one tc
the other--does not in other matters
protect the individual rights of per
sons of the negro race.
And the prohibitions of the fourth
amendment have reference to State
action exclusively and not to any ac-
ton of private individuals. 1t is u
State action of n particular charac-
ter that is prohibited. Individual in
vasion of individual rights is not the
nf apnon6rnanf
Contracts not Barred.
ut it obvious that none of these
amendments prohibited private indi-
viduals from entering into contracts
respecting the control and disposition
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, the court continued does not
involve constitutional question
within the meaning of the code pro-
visions.
While it was further urged in this
court that the DEGREES of the courts
below in themselves deprive the de-
PENDANTS Of their liberty and property
without due process of law, in vio-
lation of the fifth and fourteenth
amendments" the decision concluded.
this convention likewise cannot serve
as a jurisdictional basis for the APP
peal The appeal must be and is dis
missed for want Of jurisdiction"
The residence in question is but a
few blocks from that portion of S
street where Secretary of Commerce
Hoover lives and to which Woodrow
Wilson retired when he left the White
House.
The action of the Supreme Court
marks the elimination of fight that
had it's inception on June l, 1921,
when Mrs. Corrigan and the other
20 property owners in the neighbor-
hood signed the agreement providing
that no part of the land
shall ever be used or occupied by or
sold, conveyed. leased, rented or given
to negroes or persons Of the negro
race or blood"
The covenant was to run for Fl
years, and down through the District
courts injunctions were granted, re-
straining Mrs. Corrigan from trans
ferring the property to the colored
family. Finally reaching the Court
Of Appeals, the decision Of the Dis
trict Supreme Court was upheld and
Mrs. Corrigan was bound to the
signed agreement. Supported by
negro organizations. however, the suit
was appealed to the United States
Supreme Court and was argued in
January.
Had Mrs. Corrigan and Helen Cur
tbs won their final appeal and the in
junction of the lower court been dis
missed, attorney held that the result
would be the definite abrogation of
agreements generally whereby prop
erty owners have combined not only
to restrict their neighborhoods as to
race, but also as to the quality of