The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1926-06-05
'ZONNG'
HELD LEGAL

Dental property BY indentures OF
agreements prohibiting the sale Of
conveyance Of the properly to
negroes have been held valid by the
United States Supreme Court Ia q
decision which Will be Of great I'm
portance to realtors as well as ts,
property owners In every city ct
the country.
Contention that such contract
vio'ate the Fifth. Thirteenth. an5
Fourteenth Amendments Is 'entirt
" lacking in substance or color
merit the opinion states.
Rights Not Invaded
The covenant III the case il ques
ton, the court held. was valid, and
did not invade the constitutional
rights Of colored persons inasnucf
as. they had the right to enter int
similar agreements to Keep white
persons or other persons deemed
undesirable out Of colored neignbor
hoods.
The decision thus extends the
question beyond & mere distinction
on q basis Of color, and upholds
the right OF any group to covenant
to keep out Of their community any
class Of occupancy deemed unde.
sirable.
Denial to owners OF 4 right &c
impose on their own real property
restrictions an TO the use, occupancy
and future ownership OF such prop.
erty would have worked serious
interference with the orderly and
proper development of American
cities, according to resolutions
passed by the directors Of the Ma
tional Association Of Real Estate
Boards while the present case was
still pending.
Restrictions imposed BY private
contract are In nationwide use in
the protection Of residential districts
against deterioration Of character.
OF interest in connection with the
decision of the Supreme Court
though not at all parellel with 4
In subject matter, II q recent des
cigion Or the Supreme Court Of the
State of Louisiana I'm the case OF
Tyler We. HARMONY which has held
as constitutional an ordinance Of
the city OF New Orleans providing
for segregation Of the residences q
white and colored persons.
The ordinance forbids the public
authorities from issuing q building
permit for the construction OF q
residence FOR negro occupancy IN q
white community, or for q white
person In b negro community
without the written consent Of
majority OF the persons Of the OPP
posite race inhabiting that COM
munity."
Both Races Controlled
Further sections make 1t uniaw.
full for any white person to estab.
lish his home or residence ii q
negro community, or vice versa
except on the written consent De as
ma Ority of the persons or the op.
posite race inhabiting that conn
mnnity.
The opinion OF the United States
Supreme Court Georgian vs.. Buck
leyl upholding the validity Of pri-
vate agreements OF restriction on
sale Of property, was given In q
case involving property on s Street
in Washington. only q few blocks
distant from the former residence
| OF the late woodrow Wilson, and
from the home OF Secretary Hoover
and other notables.
lit dismissed for want OF 1nris-
dictiOn an appeal from a decision
OF q District OF Columbia court
which enJoined the sale Of property
by q white owner to q negro In
view of the owners agreement with
neighbors not to sell to negroes.
Property owners In certain sec.
ton OF s Street, the opinion stated,
executed an indenture in 1921 bind
Ing themselves not to sell, lease or
give their property to negroes Tor
lat least 81 years. Neighboring
property owners secured an injunc-
ton against completion Of the con-
veyance.
1t was an appeal from this in.
junction which brought the case
into the Supreme Court.
i The opinion states:
The Thirteenth Amendment, de.
nouncing slavery and involuntary
servitude, that Is, q condition OF
enforced compulsory service OF one
to another, does not in other mas.
tiers protect the Individual right 1f
persons of the negro race. The
prohibitions of the Fourteenth
Amendment have reference to State
action and not that OF private In.
dividuals.''
The Fifth Amendment IL a Iimita-
ton only upon the powers OF the
general government and Is not di.
rected against the action Of IA.
dividuals, the court held.