Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1926-01-16
ORIGIN OF THE CASE.


ORIGIN OF THE CASE.
The case originated In the District
OF Co umbia where a group of thirty
white property owners who had
covenanted not to selb their property
to Negroes, enjoined Mrs. Irene
Hand CorriRan from selling aud
Mrs. Helen Curtis. colored woman
from taking possession of a house
at 1927 s Street, Northwest, Wash
ington. The injunction was issued
by the Supreme Court of the Dis :
trict Of Columbia and sustained on
appeal by the Court of Appeals,
whence the case was again appealed
to the U. s. Supreme Court.
A formidable array of counsel
were on hand to defend the rights
Of coqored people to purchase and
occupy homes without restriction of
pale. Joining Mr. Marshall in
argument was Moorfieid. Storey, of
Boston. former President Of the
American Bar Association and now
President OF the National Assoc 'ation
for the Advancement OF Colored
People; Arthur B. Spingarn of New
York, Vice-President of the Associa-
ton; James A. Cobb, of Washington
chief attorney for the appellants in
the case; Henry -. Davis, former u.
S Attorney for the District of Co
1umbia; William HI. Lewis. o: BOs-
ton, former Assistant Ut. s Attorney
Genera; Herbert X. Stockton of
New York, and James p. Schick Of
Washington.
would DRIVE NEGROES OUT
OF WASHINGTON''
In the course Of his argument be
fore the Supreme Court Mr. Marshall
pointed out that as property in the
National Capital is necessari y monop
o'iZed in comparative few hands,
the extension of such covenants
among white property owners would
drive colored people out of the Dis
trict of Columbia and would prevent
CO ored servants living on the prem
Uses of the white owner OF property
affected. Maintaining that such
covenants are opposed to public pol
icy. Mr.. Marshall referred to the
Supreme Courts decision in the case
of Buchanan VS.. Marley. the so-caf.ed
Louisville Segregation Case, Of 1917,
in which it was decided that segre-
CATION by municipal or state legisla
ton was unconstitutional
SEGREGATION BY LEGISLATION
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
cit would appear to be obvious.
said Mr.. MarshaW that where q
legislature Is prohibited from sane
tioning particular policy, individ-
uals may not enter into contracts in
direct derogation Of the same pol
icy. Surely that which Legislature
carnot sanction should not be COM
PEELED to be done by decree OF a
court of equity enforcing specific
performance Of an agreement he
tween third parties. which Is equiv
alent of such eris alton and is FRO
ductive of identical results.
Mr.. Marshall then declared that I'll
the Constitution could be evaded :.
ii is attempted to be by tine device
here employed. Il would not re diff
ficult to create situation bearipf
the elements of a contract tha
WoulQ PIOSChI al CO-olOu POI OWL kAok
owning realty Or from taking up hi:
habitation in any State or in am
part of State.
OTHER CASES HELD PENDING
DECISION.
Other segregation cases through
out the United States are being helt
pending the Supreme Courts deci
ion in this one it was stated, b.
James A Cobb, chief counsel for tn
appellants. MIR. Cobb stated tina
similar. cases had arisen in st. Loui
Los Angeles and other cities, AM
l:sSs
- 81 Ii7 -