Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1926-01-16
RACE SEGREGATION"

The ouly true way to make the
MASS o. mankind see the beauty of
: ja9tice- is by showing to them in
pretty plain terms the consequences
o injustice" Smith
%xa|
WE HAVE READ with much in :
terest the editorial utterances of The
Richmond, Va. Times-Dispatch, In
iits,issee of the 18th inst. under the
caption, Race Segregation. 1t is
a virtual concession that the advo
Gates OF this pernicious legal policy
cannot maintain their position under
tie constitutional provisions of this
State or those of the United States.
1t says: ~
There is now before the Supreme
Court of the United States case
of much consequence to the resi-
dents of many cities, especially in
the North, East and South. Owners
of certain real estate in Washington
agreed that for period of twenty
one years no one of them would sell
any part of the property to Negro.
One of the owners violated the terms
of the agreement and, entered into
contract to sell her house and lot.
Performance OF ehis contract was
= enjoined by the lower court, and the
matter is now before the Supreme
Court on the ground that the orig
inal agreement among the property
owners is invalid because Of it's
discrimination against the colored
race, I'll
1t will be noted that the alleged
offender in this instance, the violator
of the contract is white property
owner. The colored purchaser, not
beng party to the proceedings is
not bound by the contract made be-
tween the white neighbors and the
agreement being inconsistent and
opposed to the fundamental law is
not enforcible by the court.
Granting That the contract binds
the white property owner, this white
property owner would be liable for
any damages caused by the violation
of the contract, but this would not
affect the validity of the contract
made with the colored purchaser. II
is more a matter of honor than any
thing Else and has no legal binding
effect. after the provisions of the
same have been violated.
Viewed, from another angle, the
property owner is liable to the pur
chaser should she fail to deliver the
property TO the purchaser. The very
Interesting question arises as tc
whether the court has the lega
right tC vitiate a legal contract il
favor of another contract that i!
unlawful Property owners Ca. en-
ter into such mutual agreements a.
those specified, but it is purely s,
matter of honor amongst themselve
and is not legally enforcible.
The Times. Dispatch says
Segregation ordinances in var
iouS cities are not directly befor
the court, of course, but counsel 70
those against whom the injunction
was issued contend that the sam
principle Is involved and that, undo
a decis on in a Louisville segregation
case, the Supreme Court must holt
the original agreement Invalid
Owners of land in many cities are
of course, directly interested in tn
decision to be handed down in thi
case
The above statement covers tn
situation exactly. 1t continues:
Whale ever the decision in tn
Louisville case was and whatever tn
race. color and, previous condition G
seIvitude' C auses may be 1t unquei
tionably would be to the ultimate a
vantage of both races if the Suprem
Court were to uphold the origin;
agreement. 1t is to be said,
-coures that the Supreme Court hs